

Copyright N° 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT: 



































/ 

















What the Bible 
Teaches 


By 


H: C. GARVIN 

Eldon, Mo. 


"BSs'M 

.G"3 (o 


LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
Two Conies Received 

DEC 28 1908 

/ 

Copyright untry 

Oe^.1,1 og 

CLASS CL XXc. No. 



Copyright 

1908 

By H. C. GARVIN. 


All Rights Reserved 


Published December, 1908. 


Wilson 

Typesetting Company , 
St. Louis. 


^t>T\4Z 


INDEX. 


Preface 5 

God - 7 

God the Creator. - 9 

God’s Reason for Creating 10 

Order of Creation 10 

Angels 11 

f j A Reason for Creating Our World 14 

Creation of Man 23 

Body, Soul, Spirit 26 

The Creature was Without Sin 35 

Origin of Sin 36 

Fall of Man 40 

Sin and Its Consequences! „ 41 

Sacrifice 52 

Circumcision 58 

Washing 66 

The Law 69 

Jesus, the Christ 70 

How Jesus Would Have Men Consider Him 71 

Was Jesus Free From Sin? .. 75 

Atonement - — 83 

Forgiveness of Sin 83 

Jesus as the Mediator 92 

Jesus as Advocate - 92 

Making Intercession - 95 


4 


INDEX. 


Propitiation -.... 97 

Jesus as Sacrifice ; - 100 

Jesus and the Holy Spirit 102 

Blood of Jesus ! „...106 

Justification 123 

Teaching of Jesus 127 

Death of Jesus - 158 

Resurrection . 159 

Judgment .. - 164 

Repentance 175 

■Faith 181 

Church - ......190 

Sacraments 204 

Baptism 209 

The Supper 259 


PREFACE. 


What is commonly called the church is in a deplorable 
condition. That is recognized by every thoughtful person. 
It has been rebuked now kindly, now severely, in sermons, 
lectures, articles and books. But a careful analysis and 
comparison will show that the condition of the church is 
just as good as the preaching that it hears, and the 
preaching is just as good as the teaching of the theological 
schools. The condition of the church is the natural, the 
logical result of the teaching of the schools. The concep- 
tion of God’s purpose concerning man is fundamental and 
must influence all religious views. In religious matters 
one may easily imagine there are great differences where 
there is none. If one man worshiped a white cat and 
another a black cat, they could not worship together, and 
they might quarrel, yet there would be no essential differ- 
ence. In both cases it would be cat worship. All the con- 
tending Protestant sects have essentially the same concep- 
tion of God’s purpose with man, which does not differ 
from that held by the Catholics, which again is the same 
as that held by the Pharisees, who crucified Jesus. It is 
therefore not surprising that the world is not yet chris- 
tianized. 

Of those who deplore the condition of the church some 
seem to think that everything would be right if orthodoxy 
were restored again. But if the church could be brought 
back to any station it occupied in the last three centuries, 
things would go again as they have gone, for the same 
causes would again be active. There were and are ele- 
ments of decay in the church doctrines and therefore 


6 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


there can be no permanence. Some seem to think that the 
cure for all evils will be found in the holding of orthodoxy 
with such an easy and accommodating grasp that any part 
may be relinquished whenever the shifting views of the 
world may demand it. But if orthodoxy was not true in 
its full vigor, it will not be true anyw r here on the line 
towards the vanishing point to which it is hastening. 
Truth is not found by simply turning away from some 
error, for error is manifold. The truth is simple and must 
be sought with definite purpose. Only the truth can make 
the church free. The author believes that the truth con- 
cerning God’s purpose with man can be found in the 
Bible, and he has published this book to assist honest seek- 
ers after truth. He regrets that so much space had to be 
devoted to the refutation of error. 


GOD. 


The Bible presupposes the existence of God and some 
knowledge of Him on the part of man. If God wrote in 
the human heart the work of the law (Rom. 2 :15) He must 
have written with this a consciousness of Himself. But 
this consciousness or recognition of God is, as are all the 
primal contents of the soul, germ-like and must be de- 
veloped. 

The universe without God is incomprehensible. Only 
as we recognize that every thing has its origin in a wise 
and beneficient Person can we understand our world and 
ourselves. But this first Cause which renders everything 
else comprehensible is itself incomprehensible. “O the 
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge 
of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his 
ways past tracing out !” (Rom. 11:33.) Yet Jesus empha- 
sizes the importance of knowing God, “And this is life 
eternal, that they should know thee the only true God 
and him whom thou didst send even Jesus Christ.” (John 
17 :3.) But in speaking thus he cannot mean to know 
God in his inner being or essence, which necessarily tran- 
scends our comprehension, as we are plainly told, not only 
in the above, but also in many other passages. Jesus 
evidently means that it is life eternal to know the know- 
able of God, or “that which may be known of God,” (Rom. 
1:19) that is, wdiat God has revealed of himself. But 
God could not reveal himself otherwise than by conde- 
scending, coming down to the plane of humanity. Man 
cannot at once ascend to God’s thoughts and ways. There- 
fore, if God and man have intercourse at all, it must be 
on the plane of man’s thoughts, “For my thoughts are not 


8 


WiHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the 
Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so 
are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than 
your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8.) Man’s thoughts are always 
bound to time and space. He speaks of boundless space, 
yet to him it is always made up of measurable parts as the 
ocean is made up of drops. He speaks of all eternity by 
which he indicates that he does not mean some part of 
eternity. Here too the sum of the measurable parts is 
equal to the whole. Infinity in the conception of man is in 
every case composed of finite parts. The parts can be 
measured but not counted. Infinity is then only another 
expression for our inability to compute. We may indeed 
convince ourselves that infinity cannot be reached by 
adding together finitudes. However, many square miles 
might be added together, the sum would be a bounded 
space, a finitude, though we could not express it in figures. 
The difference between infinity and finitude is not that of 
size, for if it were, we might say that infinity is a very 
large finitude or a finitude is a very small infinity. The 
word infinity was formed to express an unlimited extent 
of time, space or quantity. Finitude has dimensions, in- 
finity has no dimensions. The difference is then that of 
kind and not that of size. But when we have reached this 
conclusion, we find that we have no conception correspond- 
ing to the word infinity as we have defined it. We have 
become accustomed to saying that God is infinite in all 
his attributes, although such an expression is not found in 
the Bible. When we say God is infinite, we are saying no 
more than the sacred writers meant when they said, “be- 
hold God is great and we know him not.” “O the depth 
of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of 
God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways 
past finding out !” The Bible expressions are better than 


GOD THE CREATOR. 


9 


ours. When we say God is infinite, we sometimes fancy 
that we have in some way given a definition of God, while 
in reality we have only said that we do not comprehend 
him. 

Having said that God is infinite and eternal, men have 
felt the necessity of saying something about his existence 
and activity. To avoid thinking that God was inactive 
up to the moment when he began to create our world, 
they have tried to think of him as creating eternally. But 
it is just as impossible for man to think of God’s creating 
eternally as it is to think of his not creating eternally. 
We cannot in any wise enter into the infinity and eternity 
of God with our human conceptions. We know nothing 
of God’s existence and activity in his transcendency, in 
his inner being. We have only to do with the knowable 
of God. But the knowable of God is his presentation 
of himself by entering into the sphere of man’s thought 
and activity, that is, by acting under the conditions of 
time and space. All the revelations of God are an 
entering on his part in some sense into the conditions of 
human life. In Jesus God entered most fully into the con- 
ditions of human life, and therefore Jesus is the fullest 
revelation of God. 

God the Creator. 

Notwithstanding the expression “of whom are all 
things,” the sacred writers seem to have known nothing 
of the emanation theory, nor of uncreated matter, out of 
which God made the visible universe, although Heb. 11 :3 
might be interpreted in harmony w T ith this view. The 
Bible does not say as theology does, that God made all 
things out of nothing, but it does teach that God created 
all things, so that there is nothing in the universe except 
God and his creatures. “In the beginning God created 
the heaven and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1) “I am the Lord 


10 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


that maketh all things.“ (Isa. 44:24). “Yet to us there 
is one God, the Father, of whom are all things.’’ “For in 
him were all things created, in the heavens and upon 
the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether 
thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all 
things have been created through him and unto him.” 
(Col. 1:16.) 

God’s Reason for Creating. 

Paul tells us, Eph. 1:11, that God worketh all things 
after the counsel of his will, but why God willed to create 
at all, why he began to create, speaking humanly, the 
Bible does not tell us. To answer this question, it would 
be necessary to enter into the inner being of God, which 
man cannot do. It is perfectly reasonable that a God 
who is love should bring into being creatures on whom he 
could bestow his love, but to say that God was impelled 
by his love to create, makes the impression that the 
existence of creatures, on whom he could bestow his love 
was necessary to his contentment, a thought that is not 
only rejected by the Christian consciousness, but by 
Acts 17 :25, “Neither is he served by men’s hands as 
though he needed anything.” So long as the thought that 
God’s love was the cause of his creating is not pushed 
to its limit, the Christian consciousness not only ac- 
cepts it, but is pleased with it. There is indeed a passage 
that speaks of God’s intention in creating all things. 
This passage w^e will consider later. 

Order of Creation. 

In the account given in the first chapter of Genesis 
we have the order of the .creation of terrestrial things, 
of which man was the last and highest. Nothing is said 
of the creation of angels unless they are included in “the 
heavens.” Franz Delitzsch and others hold that the angels 


ANGELS. 


11 


were created before the work of the six days. Evidence 
that some angels had already fallen from their first es- 
tate, they find in the sentence, “And the earth was waste 
and void.” It is argued that the condition expressed by 
these words could not result from God’s creative act, but 
only from the visitation of his wrath. Other and perhaps 
stronger reasons will appear later for the view that 
angels existed before the creation of man. It may be best 
to inquire here what the Bible teaches concerning angels. 

Angels. 

We are not told when, w T hy or how God created the 
angels. Nor can we conceive of what use such an account 
would be to us even if we could understand it. Angels 
are frequently mentioned throughout the Bible. There 
are angels of God, and angels of the devil. The latter 
are presumably the same as the unclean spirits, evil 
spirits, demons and devils frequently mentioned, especial- 
ly in the Gospels. That all wicked spirits are fallen 
angels, that is, beings that were once good, but sinned, 
is sufficiently established by 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. 
Indeed this fact could not be doubted by Christians even 
if there w r ere no reference to it in the Bible. (See the 
chapters, “The Creature was without Sin,” page 35, and 
“The Origin of Sin,” page 36.) 

The Bible does not give a definite account of the ap- 
pearance, being and w r ork of heavenly creatures. The 
cherubim, so often mentioned, and the seraphim of Isaiah, 
and the “living creatures” of Ezekiel and Revelations, 
which seem to be of the same class, if not identical, are 
described, but it is perhaps impossible for man to form 
any definite conception of them. All the heavenly crea- 
tures may be included in the expressions “the host of 
heaven” recurring frequently in the Old Testament, and 


12 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


“heavenly host’ (Luke 2:15), and “the armies which are 
in heaven,” (Rev. 19:14). Presumably only a part of the 
heavenly host is meant when the twelve legions are 
spoken of. (Matt. 26 :53.) These expressions with the oft 
used appellation “Lord of hosts,” indicate that the Bible 
writers thought of the heavenly creatures as an organized 
force. This is more certainly set forth by the designa- 
tions, “rule, authority, thrones, dominions, principalities, 
powers,” found in Eph. 1 :21, and Col. 1 :16, and archangel 
in Thess. 4:16, which must designate dignitaries among 
their kind whatever else they may mean. Whether all the 
above named creatures belong to the class “angel” is a 
question which the Bible does not answer, and about 
which theologians do not agree. For convenience we 
will speak of all heavenly creatures as angels. 

Angels are spirits in the service of God. “Are they not 
all ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the 
sake of them that shall inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:14.) 
Probably only good spirits are meant in this passage, but 
also evil spirits are represented as serving God. “Now 
the spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an 
evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” (Sam. 16:14.) 
“Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit 
in the mouth of all these thy prophets.” (1 Kings 22: 
19-23.) Testimony from the Old Testament with regard 
to such a matter will have but little weight with many. 
But we find very similar statements made by Paul. “And 
for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that 
they should believe a lie.” (2 Thess. 2:11.) “I indeed 
being absent in body, but present in spirit, have already, 
as if being present, sentenced the one having thus done 
this, that we, ye and my spirit with the power of Jesus 
our Lord, assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus, shall 
deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the 


ANGELS. 


13 


flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord 
Jesus.” (1 Cor. 5:3-5.) The truth is that all God’s 
creatures must serve him. In a great house there are 
not only vessels but also servants, some unto honor and 
some unto dishonor. Some clean and clad in purity, do 
work in the immediate presence of the Master and under 
his guidance, while others filthy and far removed from 
his presence, do scavenger work. (2 Tim. 2:20,21.) 

We have seen above that some angels are superior, 
some inferior, which means that some do work under the 
direction and supervision of others. Some have greater 
wisdom, knowledge, and power than others. Only two 
angels are named in the Bible, Gabriel, meaning hero of 
God, and Michael, meaning either Who is like God? or 
Who is like me who am God? The latter interpretation, 
if correct, would remove him from the class of created 
beings. Since the letters in the name do not make this 
interpretation necessary, it seems that the desire to iden- 
tify Michael with the Word which was in the beginning 
w T ith God led to it. John tells us that the Word was 
active in creating all that was made, and it is impossible 
to think otherwise than that he took part with God in 
the care of his creatures. The belief that the Word ap- 
peared to man as an angel finds support in several pas- 
sages. (Gen. 48:15, Ex. 3:2-6.) The question whether 
Jesus appeared to men in any form before his incarnation 
is certainly very interesting, but its discussion does not 
come within the scope of this work. It is sufficient for 
the present to say that the passages relied on to show 
that the angel of the Lord and the Word are the same, 
can esaily be understood otherwise. 

Angels are limited in knowledge. “But of that day and 
hour knoweth no man, not even the angels of heaven.” 
(Matt. 24:38.) But they are capable of learning, and 


14 


WiHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


therefore of development. “To the intent that now unto 
the principalities and powers in the heavenly places 
might be made known through the church the manifold 
wisdom of God.” (Eph. 3:10.) “To whom it was re- 
vealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they 
minister these things which now have been announced 
unto you through them that preached the Gospel unto 
you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which 
things angels desire to look into.” (1 Peter 1:12.) They 
desire to look into, that is they are eager to learn what 
is the effect on men, and what will be the final result of 
the Gospel of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. 
According to the above they learn by observation and ex- 
perience as human beings do. 

A Reason for Creating Our World. 

The passage before spoken of that seems to give a 
reason for the creation of the universe is the following: 

“For this cause, I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of 
the Gentiles — if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that 
grace of God which was given me to you -ward; how that by revela- 
tion was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few 
words, whereby, when ye read ye can perceive my understanding in 
the mystery of Christ; which in other generations was not made 
known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his 
holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to-wit, that the Gentiles 
are fellow heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partak- 
ers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, whereof I was 
made a minister, according to the gift of that grace of God which 
was given me according to the working of his power. Unto me, who 
am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach 
unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all 
men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which from ail ages 
hath been hid in God who created all things; to the intent that now 
unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be 
made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, accord- 
ing to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our 
Lord.” (Eph. 3:1-11.) 

Were it not for the semicolon, most readers would think 
that the Tvords “to the intent that” connect their clause 
with “created all things.” If this be the proper gram- 
matical connection, the purpose in creating all things 


REASON FOR CREATING. 


15 


was that God might show his manifold wisdom to the 
heavenly creatures through the church. Our translators 
inserted the semicolon because they thought these 
clauses are not grammatically connected. They no 
doubt thought, as some commentators, that the pur- 
pose clause beginning with “to the intent that” is 
directly connected with “whereof I was made a minister” 
or perhaps with this and the following similar expres- 
sions. If this view were correct, why was the clause “who 
created all things” used at all? There was certainly 
no motive for affirming that God created all things. More- 
over, it is said that the making known of God’s wisdom 
through the church is according to God’s eternal pur- 
pose which he purposed in Christ Jesus. But in him, 
through him and unto him were all things created. (Col. 
1:16.) If a part of God’s great purpose was and is that 
he would teach the higher intelligences concerning his 
wisdom through his believing children on earth, he must 
have created them, both the higher and the lower intelli- 
gences, so that this can be done. It is not necessary to 
understand that God had no other purpose in creating, or 
rather that nothing else entered into his great purpose. 
But it cannot be questioned that this did enter into his 
purpose. When he created all things this intention was 
present with him, that is, he created all things with the 
intention, or to the intent that now unto the principali- 
ties and the powers in the heavenly places might be made 
known through the church the manifold wisdom of God. 
While it cannot be said in the broadest sense that God’s 
reason for creating the universe was that he might teach 
the higher intelligences concerning his wisdom through 
the church, yet as this did enter into his purpose, it may 
be regarded as a reason for his creating things as he did 
create them. That is, the higher intelligences must not 


16 WiHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

only be capable of learning by observation, but disposed 
to do so, and the constitution and condition of man must 
be the best for this purpose. 

We find then in this a reason for creating our world 
as it was and is. A careful consideration of this reason 
will be helpful especially in the form in which it is 
presented in another passage, which reads as follows: 
“For behold your calling brethren, how that not many 
w T ise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble 
are called : but God chose the foolish things of the world 
to put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the 
weak things of the world to put to shame the things that 
are strong; and the base things of the world and the 
things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the 
things that are not, that he might bring to naught the 
things that are: that no flesh should glory before God. 
(1 Cor. 1:26-29.) In the first sentence Paul calls atten- 
tion to the fact that there were at that time not many 
wise, as the world reckoned, not many mighty, not many 
of noble birth in the church. This could be explained 
by one of two suppositions. The first supposition is that 
God passed by the worldly wise, the mighty, the noble, 
and called their neighbors who were unwise, weak and 
ignoble. The word chose of the following verses seems 
to confirm this supposition. But how can this supposi- 
tion be harmonized with the cardinal truth that God is 
love? Cannot or will not God love the intellectual, the 
mighty, the noble? The passage indicates nothing of the 
kind, for there were a few such in the church at that time. 
If God can love one worldly wise man why not another? 
If he can love some mighty, some noble persons, why not 
others? It will be observed that from the standpoint of 
this supposition verse 26 is not in harmony with verses 
27 and 28, for if God chose only foolish, weak, ignoble 


REASON FOR CREATING. 


17 


persons, there never would have been wise, mighty, or 
noble persons in the church, but according to verse 26 
there were some such in the church. Paul was a chosen 
vessel, and surely no one would call him foolish, weak, or 
ignoble. Who would affirm that the church is and always 
has been composed of foolish, weak and ignoble persons? 

The other supposition is that God called all, the wise, 
the foolish, the strong, the weak, the noble, the ignoble, 
but only some gave heed to the call, especially few of the 
wise, mighty, noble as the world reckons wisdom, might 
and nobility. This is also easily understood, for the 
worldly wise wrapt up in their self-conceit, and the mighty 
and the noble with their self-will and selfish purposes 
cannot easily accept God’s call to humility and self- 
denial. But if God called all, how could Paul say that 
God chose the foolish, the weak? Did God call some he 
did not want, and therefore did not choose? That one 
cannot think possible. True, Jesus says, “Many are 
called but few are chosen.” (Matt. 22:14.) But in that 
case the chosen were those who properly accepted the in- 
vitation. That is reasonable enough. We can easily un- 
derstand that many who are called do not accept, but it 
is impossible to believe that God called many or even 
few that he did not want. He certainly wants all to turn 
and live. The passage cannot mean that God chose the 
foolish, the weak, the ignoble to the exclusion of the 
wise, the mighty, the noble. It does not say that God 
chose foolish persons to put to shame wise persons, but 
he chose foolish things, weak things, etc. “Things” is 
very general. It may comprehend persons, but certainly 
more than persons. We must note the repetition of the 
modifier “of the world/ 1 and that it stands only with the 
tilings God chose. This might possibly mean that God 
chose what the world considers foolish, weak, ignoble, but 


IS WiHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

it cannot be said that God chose everything the world con- 
siders foolish, weak and ignoble to the exclusion of every- 
thing the world considers wise, mighty and noble. God 
did not choose ignorance, slothfulness, cowardice, etc., 
to the exclusion of knowledge, diligence, courage, etc. 
There remains then but one other reason for the use of 
the modifier “of the world/’ and that is because the other 
things are not of the world. God chose the foolish things 
of the world, that he might put to shame the wise persons 
not of the world, and the weak things of the world that he 
might put to shame the mighty not of the world, etc. Now t 
all the things, including all the persons of the world, are 
foolish, weak and ignoble compared with the lofty intel- 
ligences of the heavenly places, or the spirit world. In 
order to have the matter clear before us, let us represent 
to our minds the course of events thus: God had created 
the angels and some of the mightiest of them had fallen, 
that is, had turned away from God. The problem was 
then not only to rescue these, but to prevent others from 
going astray. We might imagine that God could have 
created beings of greater intelligence, of greater power, 
and of higher rank than the fallen, and through these 
have taught the angels his manifold wisdom, but he 
chose, that is he chose to create the foolish, the weak, the 
ignoble things of the world. 

We will add one more passage, which has been and is 
variously understood : “For verily not of angels doth he 
take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham..” 
(Heb. 2:16.) This was formerly translated: “For verily 
he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took upon 
him the seed of Abraham.” This translation, long so 
stoutly defended, is now given, up. The meaning of the 
passage depends on the meaning of the words “taketh 
hold.” If these words mean helpeth, as many think, the 


REASON FOR CREATING. 


19 


passage is at variance not only with the interpretation 
we have given to 1 Cor. 1 :26-29, but with the plain words 
of Eph. 3 :8-ll, and Col. 1 :20. Nor is this meaning sup- 
ported by the context. Why should the writer say that 
he does not help angels, but he helps Jews? Does he not 
help Gentiles too? If we understand the words taketh 
hold in the sense of begins with , the passage is plainer. 
In his work of saving, Jesus takes hold of or begins with 
the seed of Abraham, but his efforts do not stop there; 
they extend to Gentiles, and we may conclude to angels 
also, for if they were not concerned in this matter, why 
should they be mentioned at all? 

As much importance attaches to this matter, it may be 
well to examine into the reasonableness of the doctrine 
deduced from the passages considered. It is reasonable 
that God, who is love, should put forth an effort to rescue 
every erring creature, and to restrain those that might 
go astray. But at first sight it does not seem so reasona- 
ble that he should operate on the wise through the foolish, 
on the mighty through the weak, etc. This is the reverse 
of what man would expect. But when we reflect how 
difficult it is for an instrument in God’s hands to regard 
itself as an instrument and not to arrogate anything to 
itself, we begin to see the wisdom of God’s arrangement. 
The man, however weak he may be, through whom God 
does a great work, or on whom he bestows a great grace, 
will certainly take to himself some credit. But this is 
pride, self-conceit, which is sin. Even the wise and good 
Apostle Paul needed something to humble him. “By 
reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations — 
wherefore that I should not be exalted overmuch, there 
was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, 
to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch. Con- 
cerning this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it 


20 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


might depart from me. And he hath said unto me, my 
grace is sufficient for thee : for my power is made perfect 
in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in 
my weakness, that the strength of Christ may rest upon 
me. Wherefore I take pleasure in weakness, in injuries, 
in necessities, in persecutions, in distress for Christ’s 
sake; for when I am weak I am strong.” (2 Cor. 12:7-10.) 
It is not only reasonable to suppose that angels are sus- 
ceptible of a feeling of self-importance, but support to 
this is given by the usual interpretation of 1 Tim. 3:6: 
“Not a novice lest being puffed up he fall into the con- 
demnation of the devil,” that is, into the sin into which 
the devil fell. The end to be reached is that the whole 
universe shall recognize that salvation is of God and of 
him alone. No being shall boast before God, for that 
would disturb love. (See Origin of Sin, page 36.) All 
shall glory in God and in him alone, as all must love him 
with the whole heart. But when God works through a 
man or an angel and thereby benefits others, there is 
danger that the instrument through whom He works may 
be injured by becoming proud. When God works through 
the foolish and weak they, too, become proud, as we have 
so often seen in the case of ministers and other church 
workers. But to others it is clear that the work is of the 
Lord, and then the pride of the weak is more easily 
cured than that of the intellectually great. Proof of this 
we can find in our observations, and also in the reflection 
that if the pride of the intellectually great Tvere more 
easily cured than that of the foolish and weak, it would 
be easier to rescue Satan than it is to rescue erring man. 
Satan is certainly intellectually the greatest of all God’s 
enemies and the hardest to bring to repentance and hu- 
mility. Our reason then justifies the plan which we have 
found set forth in these passages. 


REASON FOR CREATING. 


21 


Is the interpretation given contrary to any Scripture? 
Many will immediately recall the passages which seem 
to say that the doom of Satan and his angels is already 
fixed. These passages will be considered in the discussion 
of the judgment. It may be sufficient for the present to 
remark that the rescue of the fallen spirits is only one 
part, that the benefit of the good spirits is also had in 
view. One might conceive it to be possible for God, in 
harmony with a true impulse of love, to put forth an 
effort to save the fallen spirits even if he knew that it 
could not be done. The good spirits must necessarily de- 
plore the error of their former fellows, and not understand- 
ing the impossibility of rescuing them, if it be an impos- 
sibility, they might interpret God’s conduct towards them 
as wanting in love, if he made no effort to save them. If 
one feels compelled to believe that fallen spirits are 
doomed beyond all hope, one should remember that 
throughout the New Testament evil spirits are represented 
as having free access to human beings, and as having 
power to influence them to do wrong. Why should God 
permit this if no good purpose is served thereby ? Accord- 
ing to the common conception the contact with demons 
endangers the welfare of men without benefiting any one. 
If we have rightly understood Paul’s meaning, we can see 
how both men and demons may be benefited. But whether 
bad angels are included among those to be instructed, or 
good angels alone are meant is not of great importance to 
us now. Our object at present is to find out God’s pur- 
pose in creating our world. If we learn that it was to 
instruct angels, we have reached our goal. The question 
as to what kind of angels is secondary. But we will re- 
mark that the defining phrase “in the heavenly places,” 
or in heaven, does not exclude wicked spirits, as one 
would at first naturally think, for the Bible writers did 


22 


WiHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


not think of wicked spirits as being banished from the 
presence of God, from heaven. (1 Kings, 22:21, Zech. 3:1, 
Job 1:2, Rev. 12:3.) But as to the main point it is cer- 
tainly clear from these passages that it is* in God’s pur- 
pose, his purpose of the ages, to instruct the mighty in- 
telligences of heaven with regard to his manifold wisdom, 
and in doing so to use the church as the means. 

There is an objection to the interpretation we have 
given to 1 Cor. 1 :26-29, which is not so easily answered. 
It is often said that the Bible writers were plain men 
without deep thoughts or reflections. The superficial 
meaning of their words is therefore the correct meaning. 
So in the case in hand, Paul only referred to the fact that 
there were not many philosophers^ not many aristocratic 
persons in the church, without any deeper thought. In 
reply to this one must say that Paul claimed to have re- 
ceived exceedingly great revelations. If his claim is 
correct, he certainly had knowledge of deep things. In- 
deed such a claim would justify the assumption that he 
had knowledge even beyond that of some men of to-day 
who think themselves quite learned. It is then in the 
first place a question of Paul’s veracity. If his claim is 
false, he was a vain boaster and does not merit any seri- 
ous attention. We must then either expect to find deep 
thoughts in his writings, or disregard him altogether. 

But I6t us suppose that he was explaining the fact that 
there w T ere not many philosophers, not many aristocratic 
persons in the church by saying that God had chosen 
plain people and simple means such as preaching, etc., to 
confound the wise and mighty of earth. If God did so, 
he did not do it whimsically, but according to a principle. 
All God’s acts among men must be done in harmony with 
fundamental principles which are as far reaching as his 
government and providence. Even this superficial view 


CREATION OF MAN. 


23 


of the passage necessitates the conclusion that to operate 
on the wise through the foolish is a fundamental principle 
of God’s dealing with his creatures. 

We have learned then that within God’s purpose in 
creating our world as he did create it lay the purpose to 
teach the intelligences of heaven his manifold wisdom. 
He chose to create weak and foolish beings, and to expose 
them to the wiles of the evil ones, knowing that in spite 
of the weakness of man and the powerful influence of evil 
spirits, he could by wisdom, patience and love develop men 
into pure and glorious beings and thereby teach the 
angels concerning his wisdom and the all-conquering 
power of his love, and thus lead them to worship him as 
the all-wise and ever patient God, who is love. In redeem- 
ing the universe, not only from sin, but from the possi- 
bility of sinning, the first act was the creation of the 
world, culminating in the creation of man. The thought 
that God is rescuing the universe through us, gives dignity 
to manhood, and should give us great patience and cour- 
age in our trials. 

The prevalent narrow views held by the church with 
regard to the creation of our world, and with regard to 
sin and suffering in the world have been a great hindrance 
to many. 

Creation of Man. 

“And God said let us make man in our image, after 
our likeness.” (Gen. 1:26.) Henry says on this passage: 
“Observe that man was made in God’s image, and after 
his likeness, two words expressing the same thing, and 
making each other more expressive. Image and likeness 
denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any 
of the visible creatures. God’s image on man consists in 
these three things. 1. In his nature and constitution, not 
those of his body but those of his soul. 2. In his place 


24 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

and authority. 3. In his purity and rectitude. God’s 
image on man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and 
true holiness. He had an habitual conformity of all his 
powers to the whole will of God.” This explanation of 
man’s likeness to God is perhaps as good as could be given 
under the supposition that what God purposed to do was 
accomplished when the first man Adam came into exist- 
ence. But Henry himself must have felt that his expla- 
nation was unsatisfactory. It is certainly saying very 
little to say that man was the nearest resemblance to God 
of any of the visible creatures. To say that Adam had an 
habitual conformity of all his powers to the whole will of 
God is a declaration without knowledge. Adam conformed 
to the will of God till he did otherwise, but how long that 
was we are not told. Adam had some resemblance to 
God, but it was very faint indeed. When God said “in 
our image, after our likeness,” he had in mind a nearer 
approach to the divine character than was realized in 
Adam. 

The Hebrew word Adam* very probably meant son or 
sons. Instead of “let us make man,” it might read, and 
very probably should read, we will make a son or sons. 
God here declares his purpose, which was not necessarily 
accomplished in the next few minutes. Paul calls God’s 
purpose in Christ Jesus his eternal purpose, or purpose 
of the ages, that is, the purpose that runs through the 
ages. What this purpose is may be learned from the first 
chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians. “Even as he 
chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that 
we should be holy and without; blemish before him in love; 
having ordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus 
Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his 

* DIN has been connected, and it seems properly so, with the 
Assyrian admanu, to build, cultivate, produce, admu, a child. Accord- 
ing to this dtk m-eans a child, son, and niOTX tillable land. 


CREATION OF MAN. 


25 


will.” (Epli. 1:4-6.) That is, God chose, not some men 
to the exclusion of others, but mankind unto adoption. 
“In him, I say, in whom also we were made a heritage, 
having been foreordained according to the purpose of 
him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will.” 
(Eph. 1:11.) God foreordained us before the foundation 
of the world unto adoption as sons, or as it reads in Rom- 
ans 8 :29, that we should be conformed to the image of his 
Son. Paul’s statement of God’s purpose is essentially the 
same as Gen. 1 :26, translated as we proposed. “And God 
said we will make sons in our image, after our likeness 
and they shall rule over all the earth.” The word make is 
not limited to the act of bringing into existence, but in- 
cludes also the act of bringing into a certain state or 
character, that is, into conformity with his Son, Jesus, 
who is the effulgence of his glory and the very image of 
his substance. When this making is completed and God’s 
purpose is accomplished, man will indeed be in the image 
of God. 

We wish to stop here a moment to emphasize as 
strongly as possible what has just been said. According 
to the three passages quoted above God’s purpose is that 
man shall be conformed to the likeness of his Son. That 
was his purpose in creating and it has been his purpose 
in all his dealings with man. This is in no wise at vari- 
ance with the statement that God purposed to use man in 
teaching the higher intelligences concerning his mani- 
fold wisdom, for God can teach the angels the lesson 
he would have them learn through the church only by 
bringing man into conformity with his Son. As the 
higher intelligences see man growing into the likeness of 
Jesus, they will understand better the manifold wisdom 
of God. If God should fail to bring man into conformity 
with his Son, he would also fail to teach the angels the 


26 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

lesson they need to learn. Who has an adequate con- 
ception of this great work? The transformation of men 
and the instruction of angels ! The current expressions 
“to join church/’ “to get religion or salvation/’ “to go or 
get to heaven/’ reveal a low if not a totally absurd con- 
ception of the grandeur and magnitude of this work. 
The church in general has so far misunderstood God’s 
great purpose that it has thought that his work consisted 
chiefly in instituting now this rite, now that ceremony, 
which men should practice as acts of worship or obedience 
to him. The general effect of these so-called institutions 
has been to enable men to seem to be religious without 
being good. This being the well ascertained historic fact, 
every rite or so-called positive institution that does not 
plainly tend to bring man into the likeness of Jesus must 
be doubted and its authority strictly questioned. In 
speaking of the likeness of Jesus many seem to think only 
of the glorified Jesus now seated at the right hand of 
God. Many think they might go straightway from some 
uproarious revival meeting to heaven or to glory as they 
picture it to themselves. Such conceptions are not Chris- 
tian. God will have us come into the likeness of the lowly, 
patient, kind, serving and suffering Jesus of Galilee. This 
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Whoever will 
not enter by this way but strives to climb up some other 
way is a thief and a robber, and will probably show him- 
self to be such by his dealings with his fellow men. 

Body, Soul, Spirit. 

God formed the body of dust of the ground and im- 
parted spirit to it, and the result of the union of body 
and spirit was that man became a living soul. Soul then 
seems to be the result of the union of the two parts sepa- 
rately created by God. The whole man was said to be a 
living soul. So in the Scriptures and elsewhere the word 


BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT. 


27 


soul is used to designate a human being. But soul is also 
the name of a part of man, as may be seen in many 
passages. “And be not afraid of them who kill the body 
but are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him who 
is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mattli. 
10:28.) “And when he opened the fifth seal I saw under 
the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the 
word of God.” (Rev. 6:9.) Likewise spirit is used to des- 
ignate a part of man. “Ye being gathered together and 
my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver 
such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that 
the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus.” 
(1 Cor. 5:5.) “The body apart from the spirit is dead.” 
(James 2:26.) At creation two entities united, and at 
death man is separated into two entities, body and soul, or 
body and spirit. From these passages one might con- 
clude that soul and spirit are two names for the same 
thing, but there are many passages in which these names 
cannot be used interchangeably, and there are two 
passages which seem to teach that they designate differ- 
ent entities. Paul’s prayer for the Thessalonians is: 
“And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and 
may your spirit, soul and body be preserved entire, with- 
out blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 
Thess. 5 :23.) From this one would naturally conclude that 
man is composed of three parts. The trichotomy of man 
seems to be even more clearly taught in Heb. 4 :12. “For 
the word of God is living and active, and sharper than 
any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing 
of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick 
to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.” If this 
means that the word is able to separate the spirit from 
the soul, then certainly spirit and soul are different 
things. But to regard them as distinct and separable 


28 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


entities would be in conflict with the Bible representation 
of both creation and the result of death, unless indeed 
we think of soul and spirit remaining united after death, 
after their separation from the body. The passage does 
not necessarily say that the Word separates the spirit 
from the soul. The word translated “dividing” means to 
separate a thing into its parts or elements rather than one 
thing from another. Moreover it is not probable that it 
means that the word separates the joints from the mar- 
row. When reading “joints and marrow” one very natu- 
rally thinks of the joints and marrow of the body. But 
the Greeks spoke of the marrow of the soul, meaning 
thereby the innermost of the soul. It is possible, then, 
for the expression to mean that the dividing, sifting, ana- 
lyzing power of the word of God reaches even to the 
innermost of the soul and spirit. If this be the meaning 
of the passage it does not make it necessary to regard 
soul and spirit as separable entities. Cremer says soul 
and spirit may be distinguished, but not separated from 
each other. Delitzsch says the spirit is the “inbreath” 
of God, and the soul is the “outbreath” of the spirit. And 
again, the spirit is the inner of the soul and the soul is 
the outer of the spirit. This is also the conception of 
Beck, who, however, distinguishes also in this way be- 
tween soul and spirit. The soul is the result of the union 
of the spirit with the body or flesh, but the whole life and 
activity of the spirit is not comprehended in this union. 
He finds confirmation for this in 1 Cor. 14 :14. But this 
is not exactly his full meaning. From his writings in 
general it is clear that he holds that the spirit is wholly 
united with the body, but yet it should have continual 
connection and intercourse with God, its source. If the 
spirit continues in such communion with God, so that the 
whole man is kept in harmony with God, he is said to 


BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT. 


2-9 


be led by the spirit, is said to be a spiritual man. The 
fact that the spiritual man is chiefly thought of as one 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is not at all in 
conflict with this, for the work of the Holy Spirit is so 
to renew and strengthen the spirit of the man that it can 
and will do its proper work. If the spirit cease to draw 
new life and strength from its source, if its intercourse 
with God is interrupted, the man becomes soulish or 
selfish. The word soulish is not in use. In 1 Cor. 2:14, 
where it might be used, we find the word natural. “Now 
the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God, for they are foolishness unto him ; he cannot know 
them because they are spiritually judged.” The word natu- 
ral seems to have been chosen because the unregenerate 
man was thought to be in the state of nature. Why should 
not the man who is in harmony with God be regarded as 
a natural man, and the man who is out of harmony with 
God as an unnatural man? It would have been better to 
say soulish man or animal man. If one does not wish 
to designate the man whose spirit is not in communion 
with God as an animal man, or a soulish man, which is 
the nearest approach to Paul’s language, one might call 
him a sensual man. But in this case the word sensual 
must not be taken in its bad sense, but in such sense as it 
might be applied to John Stuart Mill, and to which he, 
if living, would not object. The man whose life is con- 
trolled by the baser passions is a fleshly or carnal man. 
The Bible distinguishes three classes. The carnal man 
whose spirit is in bondage to the lower passions and appe- 
tites of the flesh; the soulish, animal or sensual man, 
whose spirit is wholly engaged in things of this world 
though they be of the highest ; the spiritual man, whose 
spirit is in communion with God, loves God and lives 
unto him. Purposely I used spirit, but soul might have 


30 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

been used in each of the above sentences. Soul and spirit 
are then two names for the same thing, but in different 
conditions, or at least viewed from different standpoints. 
One might seek to make this plainer by saying that spirit, 
when thought of in connection with the body or occupied 
with the things of this world, may properly be called 
soul, and the soul, when engaged in activities above and 
beyond this world, may properly be called spirit. How- 
ever, it is often convenient to speak of spirit, soul, body. 
We say man receives impulses from the higher world 
through the spirit, and from this lower world through 
the body. But the impulses from the higher world do not 
stop with the spirit in its transcendency, but go to the 
spirit in its connection with the body, that is to the soul, 
and hereby influence the body also. This is conveniently 
expressed thus: Every impulse received by the spirit is 
transmitted to the soul, and through it to the body, and 
every impulse received by the body is transmitted to the 
soul and through it to the spirit. 

Various objections have been made to the Biblical doc- 
trine of soul and spirit. It is said that inasmuch as spirit 
is immaterial it cannot unite with body which is material. 
Through a stimulus an impulse is given to a nerve and is 
quickly carried to the brain, but how can it there be com- 
municated to an immaterial something? It is charitable 
to assume that they who speak thus merely mean that 
they do not know how spirit and body are united. There 
are many combinations in nature which man cannot imi- 
tate, that is, he does not know how the elements are com- 
bined. No one can combine corn and sugar so that the 
result will taste like sugar corn, yet God can and does 
produce sugar corn. It would be great presumption to 
say that God cannot incorporate spirit in flesh. 

Again, it is assumed that inasmuch as the spirit or soul 


BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT. 


31 


is immaterial, it can have no extension, that it is indeed 
only a mathematical point, and therefore cannot be in con- 
nection with the whole nervous system, unless all nerves 
meet at some common point. But such a point has not been 
found. What does this prove? That there is no soul? Or 
that some assumptions with regard to the soul are false? 
All the arguments against the existence of the soul are 
drawn from our inability to understand this or that. The 
inability to understand or ignorance is a poor basis for 
any argument. If a man thinks he has no soul, he thinks 
so, not on account of anything he knows about biology or 
psychology, but because of some notion he entertains 
about something else; perhaps about God or creation or 
the origin of man. This can be confidently affirmed, be- 
cause men who are in possession of all known biological 
facts, and men in possession of all psychological facts, 
believe that human beings have immortal spirits. If 
there were any fact of biology or psychology showing that 
man has not an immortal spirit, it would be known not 
only to a few biologists and psychologists, but to all in- 
telligent people, for it would be published with energy 
far and wide. There are men who seem to be able to 
explain satisfactorily to themselves every human phe- 
nomenon on the hypothesis that man is wholly material 
in the grossest sense. But the fact that the materialist is 
satisfied with his explanation of the phenomena is far 
from being proof that man has no spirit. If man has 
immortal spirit, it is an important fact and should be 
known to all, but if the contrary be true, if man be mere 
matter that will once separate into its elements as does a 
pumpkin or a block of wood, it is not clear how the 
knowledge of this could benefit anyone. It is therefore 
not easy to understand why materialists are so eager to 
promulgate their belief. If a man knows something that 


32 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


would be helpful to others he should surely make it 
known to as many as possible. But if he is not quite cer- 
tain that he knows the thing in question, and does not 
see clearly how his supposed knowledge would benefit 
others, he might well refrain from speaking. It is a his- 
toric fact that the teaching of Jesus, which is based on 
the immortality of the soul, has produced the strongest 
and noblest characters the world has ever seen. Is there 
any reasonable hope that a soulless system of morality 
will have better results? There are professors of psy- 
chology who strive in their lectures and in their books to 
eradicate the idea of soul and spirit. Psychology, say 
they, does not treat of soul or spirit, but of mind, and 
mind is the sum total of one’s thinking, feeling etc., and 
when thoughts, feelings, etc., cease there is no mind. If 
such a professor cannot and does not communicate to his 
students a system of morality that will guard them as 
well against temptation and stimulate them to as noble 
living as does the teaching of Jesus, he is a public nui- 
sance. It is not implied in this that any man should 
suppress any knowledge he has, but it is affirmed that no 
psychologist has any fact that contradicts the existence 
and immortality of the soul as taught in the Bible. 

But the pronounced materialists are not the only sin- 
ners in this respect. Christian men in Great Britain, and 
especially in this country, avoid the use of the words soul 
and spirit as much as possible. They, too, prefer to say 
mind, understanding, intellect. One may go through the 
regular course in a Christian college and hear nothing, one 
may say, about soul or spirit. The student will hear 
much about the care of the body, and even special parts 
of the body, also much about intellectual culture, train- 
ing of the mind, of the reason, of the memory, of the 
imagination, etc., w r hereby the student will think only of 


BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT. 


33 


his brain. Only in a sermon will he hear about the soul, 
and then scarcely more than that it is something that 
ought to be saved, but is in great danger of being lost. 
But this is not all. The translators of our Bible avoided 
the use of the word soul. Lev. 17 :11, reads literally, “For 
the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” Our translators not 
believing that the soul is in the blood corrected the 
passage so that it reads, “For the life of the flesh is in the 
blood.” If life and soul are the same, why not use soul 
as in the original? If they are different, what is the dif- 
ference, and why put life for soul? It will probably be 
said that the Hebrew word means sometimes soul and 
sometimes life. That is only saying that we translate 
sometimes with one word, sometimes with the other. Did 
Moses understand that he was applying the same word to 
different things? What difference do we make between 
life and soul, and what leads one to avoid soul? When we 
ponder this question we shall find that we use life, and 
other words, because we prefer an abstraction. Soul is 
too concrete. The avoidance of the word, or better, of 
the conception of soul has led men into absurdities. A 
notable case is found in Matthew 6 :25-32. Here Jesus is 
made to say, Do not be anxious about your life ; what ye 
shall eat, for the life is (worth) more than food. Now, 
if it said, do not be anxious about life for it has very little 
value, the sentence would at least be intelligible. Men are 
anxious about valuable things, but never about worthless 
things. To say, do not be anxious about life, for it is 
very valuable is absurd. Jesus said, Do not worry with 
your soul about what ye shall eat, for the soul is more than 
the food. The soul is too valuable to exhaust and wear 
out by worrying about food. That is a proposition which 
every business man understands. A valuable machine 
must not be worn out producing that which is compara- 


34 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

tively worthless. If Jesus had intended to say, do not 
worry about your life, he would have said life and not 
soul, and he would have used the same preposition with 
the same case that he used in verse 28, where he asks, And 
why do ye worry about raiment? Aristotle,* in his 
psychology 1 :4, 11, says, To say that the soul gets angry 
is the same as if one should say the soul weaves or builds. 
Doubtless one would better not say the soul pities or 
learns or thinks, but that man does these things with 
the soul. In harmony with Aristotle’s view of the proprie- 
ty of speech, Jesus says do not worry with or by means of 
the soul. 

In respect to the use of the word soul German psycholo- 
gists differ widely from American writers on this subject. 
They do not shun the word. Even those who do not admit 
that the soul is a transcendental substance, hold that a 
bearer of the psychological phenomena is a necessary con- 
cept, and this they call the soul. Likewise Prof. Paul 
Dubois in his published lectures, The Psychic Treatment of 
Nervous Disorders, speaks continually of the power, the 
influence of the soul and spirit over the body, and of the 
effects of bodily conditions on the soul. He declares him- 
self to be a free thinker, and he says nothing about either 
the substance or the immortality of the soul. These lectures 
were delivered to medical students and have necessarily 
chiefly to do with things and conditions of this life. Yet 
he lays great emphasis upon morality. In reading these 
lectures I was frequently reminded of Beck’s Biblical 
Psychology. This fact is noteworthy. Beck was a thor- 
ough-going Bible man. To him the Bible was the Word 
of God. His effort was to present the psychology of the 


*T6 dt \eyeip dpytfraOac tt]v \pv yrip, 8/xotop K&v e'i rts \eyoi tt)p 
\)<t>alveiv, rj olnodopielp' Qeknov yap tarn fx y \eyeip ttj v yj/vxhv 
eXeeti', rj /xavdaveiv, rj biavooivdai, dXXa top apOpwirov rrj ijsvxv. 


BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT. 


35 


Bible. Dubois is a physician and psychologist with true 
sympathy with sufferng humanity. In his discussion of 
the ailments and the treatment of the sick he uses the 
words soul and spirit seemingly in the same sense in 
which Beck uses them. That is, one may put the meaning 
which Beck gives to these words into every sentence in 
wdiich these words occur in Dubois’ lectures and the sense 
will be complete, better indeed than it would be with any 
other meaning given to these words. The man of the Bible 
and the man of medical science, the psychological theolo- 
gian and the psychological physician seem to meet on 
common ground. From this we may say that the psychol- 
ogy of the Bible is not inconsistent with the best that 
science to-day knows. There is therefore no excuse for 
avoiding the words soul and spirit in text-books and lec- 
tures on psychology, and in education in general. On the 
contrary it is of the highest importance that every one un- 
derstand that he is, whether consciously or unconsciously, 
training his soul. Every good impress on the soul is a 
valuable acquisition for eternity. It is a treasure laid up 
in heaven. Every bad impress is an injury that must some 
time be removed, perhaps only with great suffering. From 
this standpoint education and culture have a different 
aspect and a far greater significance. Here is not the 
place to discuss the psychology of the New Testament. 
Neither is it necessary here to examine into the inner 
being of the soul. Lotze and Fechner differed on this 
point, yet both believed in the immortality of the soul, 
and neither thought of any education apart from the 
soul. The soul is the bearer of every faculty, the ego, the 
personality, and is to be trained for the society of wise, 
pure and holy men, of angels, of Jesus and of God him- 
self. 

The Creature Was Without Sin. 

“And God saw everything that he had made, and be- 


36 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


hold it was very good.” (Gen. 1:31.) This statement 
might be meant to apply only to the things named in this 
chapter. But why should not all God’s creatures be good 
when they come from his hand? So far as the testimony 
of the Scriptures goes, he made everything good. We have 
no account of the creation of angels, but it is as incon- 
ceivable that he made some angels to be bad as it is that 
he made some men bad. But if God created all things 
good, whence the sin that is in the world ? 

Origin of Sin. 

The Bible represents God as absolutely holy and his 
will as just and good. Any lack of conformity to the will 
of God is therefore wrong, is sin. God’s will concerning 
man is that he love God with all his heart, soul, mind and 
strength, and his neighbor as himself. The man who thus 
loves God and his neighbor is right, just and good. If a 
man does not love God with all his heart, and his neighbor 
as himself, he is not right before God, that is, he is a sin- 
ner, and his lack of love is the measure of his sin. God 
created every sentient being, and perhaps all others, to 
exist for itself and for others, not more for itself than for 
others, not more for others than for itself. This equipoise 
between self and others can be maintained only by per- 
fect devotion to the center and source of all being. The 
change of this equipoise between self and others into in- 
clination towards self is the fall, for any inclination 
towards self is necessarily accompanied by lack of devo- 
tion to God. So long as a number of beings, angels, we 
will say, loved God with all their powers, and each his 
fellow as himself, no one would place himself even in his 
own mind in opposition to the others. The pleasure and 
joy of one would be the pleasure and joy of all. If the 
created spirits had all been equal in every respect, and 
quite stable in their powers, that is, not capable of any 


ORIGIN OF SIN. 


37 


growth or development, there would have been less danger 
of any one’s preferring self to others. But angels are 
capable of development, and there were and are ranks 
and degrees among them. Given that angels are beings 
who learn by experience, beings capable of growth in 
knowledge and wisdom, having different labors and offices, 
it cannot be surprising to us that some of them came to 
prefer self to others, or esteemed self above others. In- 
deed we have much greater difficulty in believing that any 
created intelligence persevered continually in the perfect 
equipoise between self and others. Certainly we have no 
difficulty in seeing how an inclination towards self might 
begin in the mind of some one. So soon as this took 
place, sin was in the universe. This inclination towards 
self was at first very slight, but it gradually increased till 
self was preferred even to God. 

It is generally assumed that the angels of God are per- 
fectly holy, but the Scriptures do not say so. Among 
men there are good and bad, but we do not regard even 
the best of the good as absolutely holy. They are only 
relatively good. This may be true also of angels. Some 
angels at least have sinned, and all men have sinned. We 
must therefore conclude that God could not create beings 
capable of learning, of expanding their powers, who were 
at the same time incapable of sinning, for we must assume 
that he would have prevented sin if it had been possible. 
That it was possible for all angels to sin will be freely 
admitted by all; but the question is, did they all sin? If 
we are permitted to reason from men to angels we may 
go a step farther. We attribute the moral difference be- 
tween men to the difference of soul, or to the difference of 
surroundings, or to both. We believe the qualities of soul 
are to some extent inherited. Some are born with stronger 
evil tendencies than others. Some have the advantage of 


38 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


moral surroundings, while others are under the shadow 
of ignorance and crime from birth. Angels not being 
born, not being affected by the lives of ancestors, have 
such qualities as God gave them in creation, modified only 
by their own past lives and experiences. Their surround- 
ings, too, are such as God gave them. If God created 
some with such qualities and in such surroundings that 
they did not sin, we must conclude that he could have 
created all so that they would not have sinned. So far 
as we can see, there are but two conclusions before us — 
either that God, having the power to create beings capa- 
ble of mental and moral development so that they would 
not sin, purposely created beings that would sin, and thus 
Decame the author of sin, or that God could not create 
beings capable of great expansion, who would not sin. 
This would make sin a necessary consequence of the con- 
dition in which men and angels were created. This con- 
clusion at first sight seems to excuse sin, or to excuse us 
for sinning, and to throw the responsibility upon God. 
We must reflect a moment. The greatest joy that we ex- 
perience in this life is that which comes with our growth, 
with the expansion of our powers. It must therefore seem 
probable to us that a creature capable of development is 
also capable of greater happiness than a creature of stable 
powers less than infinite. He created us then so that we 
may enjoy the greatest happiness. But to reach this 
happiness we must pass through weakness and ignorance. 
But does this make sin excusable? It is just as excusable 
as ignorance is. Can a man who cannot read excuse 
himself with the fact that he was born without the knowl- 
edge of letters ? To neglect the development of one’s men- 
tal powers is inexcusable, is sinful. It is certainly just as 
inexcusable to neglect the acquisition of virtue. All the 
powers of the soul must be developed and cultivated. The 


ORIGIN OF SIN. 


39 


only way out of ignorance is through the acquisition of 
knowledge, and the only way out of sin is through the 
acquisition of righteousness. Only those who have experi- 
enced the misery, the anguish necessarily connected with 
the estrangement from God, and who have learned to fear 
and hate evil because of its character, and to love good- 
ness for its own sake, to love God with all the heart, are 
free from the possibility of sinning. That will be a glori- 
ous day when we shall be entirely free from sin and its 
allurements. When we think of God’s great purpose in 
creating our world, and of the glorious end which he will 
accomplish in us and through us, however great our suf- 
fering in this life may be, we may say w T ith Paul, “Our 
light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us 
more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.” 
(2 Cor. 4:17). 

It is sometimes said that the sin of fallen angels is 
different from that of fallen man, in that man was tempt- 
ed while the angels were not. This latter statement may 
not be correct. For aught we know, one angel may have 
become self-inclined, and then have led others astray. 
This is in itself probable and may find some confirmation 
in Rev. 12:4. It has been thought, too, that sin affects a 
spirit differently from man, who is not spirit, but only 
has spirit. This must be true to some extent. But the 
conclusion often drawn from this reflection, namely, that 
fallen spirits cannot repent, is not necessarily correct. 
The sin of angels as of men is selfishness, but how it af- 
fects them, and how it manifests itself in them we cannot 
know. Selfishness does not manifest itself in all men in 
the same w r ay. W^e do not need to know how sin affects 
angels, but it is the immediate and personal concern of 
every one to seek to know how sin affects man. Before 
giving attention to this, we will examine the account of 
the fall given in Genesis. 


40 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


Fall of Man. 

When man was created he was at once exposed to evil. 
He was placed in a garden to which Satan had access, 
and in which was a tree beautiful to behold, of the fruit 
of which he durst not eat. Satan made use of the oppor- 
tunity. He said to Eve, Is it true that God has forbidden 
you to eat of any tree of the garden? The intention of 
this question is clear. The purpose was to create the im- 
pression that God was withholding something good from 
them, and Satan with his selfish, envious disposition, 
may really have thought so. He urges this point farther 
by declaring that God knows that through the eating of 
the fruit of a certain tree they will become wise, become 
like God. The woman is finally convinced that this is, 
at least in some measure, true, and partakes of the fruit. 
It is often thought that Eve’s sin w r as formal disobedi- 
ence, the mere act of eating. This is a great mistake. If 
Eve had reached the conclusion that God was witholding 
something good from her, but had refrained from touching 
the fruit through fear of the consequences, she would have 
been a sinner, for she could not have loved God as much 
after reaching this conclusion as she did before. Her sin 
was that she distrusted God. If she had trusted God 
fully, she would have thought that the fruit was not good 
for her, and she would not have desired it. If God had 
not forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, nor made 
any other prohibition, the one or the other, or both, might 
have become selfish, that is, sinned. When we consider 
God’s purpose in creating the world, we see wisdom in the 
arrangement for the temptation. It seems necessary that 
Satan should have some part in the fall of man, nay, that 
he should regard the fall of man as his work. 

Critics have pointed out the impropriety of making the 
destiny of a whole race depend on the act of one inex- 


SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 41 

perienced woman. It should have been observed that the 
Bible does not say or in any wise indicate, that the whole 
race would have been exempt from all trial, and would 
necessarily have remained happy, if Eve had not eaten 
of the fruit of the tree. This is merely one of the hasty 
conclusions that have prevailed too long. If Adam and 
Eve had resisted the temptation, Cain or Abel, or any 
other one of their descendants might have become selfish 
and distrusted God. 

It is hardly necessary to remark that the account of 
the temptation given in Genesis speaks only of the ser- 
pent, and says nothing about Satan. But the New Testa- 
ment writers regard Satan as the tempter of Adam and 
Eve. (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8, 10, 12; Rev. 12:9). 

Sin and Its Consequences. 

Sin began in Eve with distrust towards God, and a cor- 
respondingly increased desire, if not a feeling of neces- 
sity, of taking care of herself. This distrust is shown by 
Adam and Eve, not only by their eating of the fruit, but 
by their hiding from God. Adam shows his selfishness 
also by seeking to lay blame on Eve. “The woman whom 
thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I 
did eat.” The feeling of the necessity of taking care of 
one’s self fills the soul with anxiety. One sees dangers 
on every hand, takes measures for protection, and thus the 
strife begins. The soul’s intercourse with the source of 
all joy being interrupted, it seeks its pleasures more and 
more in the sensations coming through the body. Being 
no longer filled with love to God, its affections are cen- 
tered on self, and having now no guide but self-gratifica- 
tion, all its desires become inordinate. The result is that 
uncleanness and lust fill the heart and embitter the life. 

It ought not to be difficult for us to see that the es- 


42 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

trangement of the soul from God is the beginning and 
sum of all evils. If nation rise up against nation, party 
against party, laborer against employer and employer 
against laborer, neighbor against neighbor, and brother 
against brother, it is all because man does not love God 
supremely and his neighbor as himself. This is self-evi- 
dent. Selfish beings will strive to deprive each other of 
possessions, rights and privileges by force, cunning or 
stealth. 

Not . only are all political and social evils consequent 
on sin, but all bodily ailments are from the same source. 
Delitzsch quotes Pruys von der Hoeven, Prof, of Medi- 
cine in Leiden, as saying : “That man, who is conscious of 
his independence, who can control himself, dies, is an 
enigma, which can be explained only by his degeneracy.” 
Dubois, in the lectures already spoken of, furnishes much 
evidence of the injurious effects of passions and even of 
self fishness on the bodily health, so that these lectures 
which were primarily intended for physicians, and must 
certainly be of great value to them, are valuable also to 
the minister and indeed to every one who cares to under- 
stand better the physical effects of sin. Other physicians 
might be quoted in this connection, but regret must be 
expressed that physicians and psychologists in general 
have not done more to make clear to the laity the delete- 
rious effect of sin on the health of the body. But medical 
knowledge is not necessary to make observations sufficient 
to establish our proposition. Every one has observed 
that many, and even very slight modifications of the soul 
are immediately followed by changes in the action of the 
heart, and in the breathing. If the passion is somewhat 
marked, the digestion is perceptibly affected. Worry and 
anxiety certainly shorten life, and violent passion may 
bring speedy death. These facts, that are well known even 


SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


43 


to the superficial observer, justify the conclusion, that, if 
our observation were acute enough, we should see that 
every modification of the soul is followed by a change in 
the body, and that by some modifications of the soul, 
the body is benefited, by others the bodily functions are 
disturbed. When to these facts we add another fact, that 
no disease, however contagious and malignant, can invade 
a perfectly healthy body, we can see that without sin there 
would be no sickness. It is true, we have never seen a 
perfectly healthy body, yet the above statement is justi- 
fied by what we have seen of relatively healthy bodies in 
the presence of disease. The soul that is estranged from 
God is filled with passions that disturb the functions of 
the body, and then disease enters and death follows. This 
is the teaching of Paul. “Therefore, as through one man 
sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and 
so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.” (Rom. 
5:12). “Death is the wages of sin.” (Rom. 6:23). That 
is, sickness and death are the necessary consequences of 
sinful passions in the soul. 

The ills of humanity, of the individual and of society, 
have occupied the attention of every doctor, philanthro- 
pist, philosopher, and theologian. Indeed no seriously 
thinking person has been or can be indifferent to the 
manifold ills to which our race is subject. Whatever 
one’s attitude towards religion and the Bible may be, 
whether one be theist or atheist, deist, infidel, agnostic, 
pagan, Jew or Christian, one cannot close the eyes to the 
fact that there is much suffering in the world. True, 
not many attribute all suffering to sin. This is a great 
misfortune. Some think that sin is only a theological 
word, and others have only a very superficial and frivol- 
ous conception of it. It may be doubted, indeed, whether 
any one has an adequate conception of the hideousness, of 


44 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

the destructiveness of sin. It has been defined to be any 
want of conformity to the law of God. This definition is 
in itself not objectionable, but the final impression left 
on the minds of many is very objectionable. With many 
the course of thought is this: Sin is a violation of law, 
and violation of law displeases God. But God may be 
appeased, reconciled, that is, he may be induced to over- 
look the violation of law and then all is well. If the 
law requires a man to work a road which he never uses, 
and he can shirk the work and escape the penalty of the 
law, he will feel no inconvenience on account of his viola- 
tion of the law. Indeed, he may think his disobedience 
was of some advantage to him. Thus many think with 
regard to sin. The sin seems to them to be a pleasure; 
only the penalty is feared. This is very much like saying 
that it would be delightful to be sick, if one did not have 
to take medicine. The absurdity of such a statement 
everyone sees at once, but the sinner does not see the ab- 
surdity of loving sin and fearing the penalty. The sin 
that binds also blinds and allures. When Jesus came into 
the neighborhood of Gadara, he was met by a man who 
was so debased that he was no longer a member of society, 
but the enemy of peace and good order. His practices 
were hideous and loathsome to every moral person, yet 
to him they were pleasure. To be taken out of this condi- 
tion seemed to him to be torment. True, it was the spirit 
in him that cried out, ‘‘Torment me not,” but the man was 
not able to distinguish between himself and the spirit. 
As the spirit thought, he thought. He saw nothing de- 
sirable in the lives of the orderly citizens about him. To 
change his life was to forsake his pleasures. This will be 
found to be true in the case of every man. The sin that 
one practices seems to be pleasure, and repentance is to 
the sinner a turning away from joy to a dreary, monoton- 


SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


45 


ous life. Humanity must in some way be aroused out of 
its delusion. Men must be made to see that sin is not 
pleasure but always misery, painful steps towards death. 

Isaiah represented sinners as persons suffering from 
injuries and disease. “The whole head is sick and the 
whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot to the head 
there is no soundness in it; but wouuds, and bruises, and 
putrifying sores.” (Isa. 1:5-6). But' no writer has set 
forth the powder of sin so fully as Paul. He speaks of it 
often. From the many passages w r e will take but one 
which we must read carefully : “What shall we say then ? 
Is the law sin? By no means. But I should not have 
come to a knowledge of sin (learned its true chare ter) 
except through law. I should not have known the sinful- 
ness of coveting, if the law had not said, thou shalt not 
covet; but sin seizing the opportunity wrought in me 
through the instruction all manner of coveting. For apart 
from law sin is hidden.* I lived once (my own life) 
without law, but when the instruction came, sin burst 
forth and I died. And the instruction that was to give 
life, w r as found in my case to be unto death. For sin de- 
ceived me through the instruction, and through it slew me. 
So that the law is holy, and the instruction is holy, proper 
and good. Did that which is good become evil to me? 
By no means. But sin (became death to me) in order that 
it might appear as sin (be recognized as sin), in that it 
works death through that which in itself is good, in order 
that sin might become exceedingly sinful through the 


♦As sin was not dead but concealed, was not brought to life, but to 
light, Paul must have written, ywpls yap vS/jlov a/aapria Xadpa- iyu de 
yupls v6/aov ttot£' eXGovcrvs 8e rijs ivroXrjs i] anapria avtfecev, 
eyu di ai rtdavov- When he saw his sinful condition in the light of the 
instruction, he recognized his deadness, which is well expressed by “I 
died.” The change of dvtfeaev to dvtfvvev may have been made 
through carelessness or through a misunderstanding of the context. 
This change made the change of Xadpa to veKpa necessary, 
ivroXri should be translated everywhere in the N. T. by instruction. 


46 WtHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

instruction. We know that the law (of Moses) is spirit- 
ual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. What I indeed ac- 
complish I do not understand, for not what I will, do I, 
but what I hate, that I do. If I do that which I do not 
will, I consent to the law that it is good. Now it is no 
longer I that do it, but the sin dwelling in me. For I 
know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwells no good thing. 
For to will is present with me, but to do the good is not. 
For I do not the good that I desire to do, but the evil 
that I do not desire to do, that I practice. But if I do 
that which I do not desire to do, it is no longer I that do 
it, but the sin dwelling in me. I find then the rule, that 
when I wish to do the good, the evil is present with me. I 
rejoice according to the inner man in the law of God. I 
see another ruling power in my members warring against 
the ruling power of my mind, and bringing me into captiv- 
ity under the rule of sin, which is in my members. O 
wretched man that I am ! Who will deliver me out of the 
body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our 
Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve the law of 
God; but with the flesh the rule of sin. Now there is no 
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the 
rule of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus makes thee free 
from the rule of sin and death/’ (Rom. 7:7-8:2). 

This has been said to be the saddest elegy that ever 
came from the human heart. It is all the sadder, too, if 
it was wrung from the heart of the Apostle Paul, whom 
all regard as one of the best of our race. But it is not 
generally thought to be an expression of the experience of 
the Apostle Paul. The views of commentators as to whose 
experience is here given are very divergent. The majority, 
so far as I have examined, think that Paul has here given 
us his experience before his conversion. They believe 
that this view is fully corroborated by the 2d verse of the 


SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


47 


8th chapter, as they read it: “For the law of the Spirit 
of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin 
and death.” This passage as it stands clearly indicates 
that the period of time in which Paul was held captive by 
sin was past when he wrote this. But the reading pre- 
ferred by scholars is, “For the law of the Spirit of life in 
Christ Jesus made thee free.” If we read “thee” instead 
of “me” which is no doubt the correct reading, nothing 
is said about a change in Paul’s state. The difficulty in 
determining who was addressed may have led to the 
change of the second person to the first. The difficulty is 
really in the tense of the verb. “Made thee free” seems to 
address some person, who, the writer knows, has been lib- 
erated from the rule of sin. As no such person can be 
thought of, the address must be general, that is, to any 
and every one who reads or hears. In that case the tense 
of the verb should be present.* If then we read, “For the 
rule of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus makes thee free 
from the rule of sin and death,” there is nothing to indi- 
cate that Paul was not giving his experience at the time 
of writing. It ought to be clear to every one that he was 
not giving the experience of the unconverted, for he says : 
“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man,” 
and “I myself with the mind serve the law of God.” Now 
this the unconverted do not do. Full and conclusive 
reasons for regarding this as the experience of the Apostle 
Paul are given by Dr. Hodge in his commentary. 

When it is said that sin hindered Paul from doing the 
good that he wished to do, and led him to do the evil that 
he did not wish to do, we must not suppose that he was 
guilty of any of the grosser vices. Perhaps at no time in 
his life was he guilty of any of these, much less after he 


*As no definite person, no specific event is referred to iXevdepweev 
must be a gnomic aorist and should be translated by the present. 


48 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

became a follower of Jesus. The sins that Paul means 
are such as the ordinary Christian does not even discern. 
As we advance in the divine life and learn more of God’s 
will, we discover sin in our hearts where w T e had not seen 
it before. Sin is very subtle, and often presents itself as 
virtue. When we remember that any preference of self 
is always accompanied by a corresponding lack of love to 
God and to man and is therefore sin, we can understand 
how sin can be present with us even when we most earn- 
estly desire to do good. How easily does selfishness en- 
ter into our best plans and purposes! Let us suppose a 
case. A man wishes to be an efficient worker in. the 
church. He wishes to have the power to reach the hearts 
of men, to awaken the conscience, and to lead many 
through repentance unto salvation. That man desires a 
good work. But if in this desire he thinks of the praise, 
the popularity, the position in the church and in society, 
and the material gain that will come to him from this 
work, he must say with Paul, “I find then the law, that 
to me who would do good, evil is present.” Thus sin is 
present with us in our aspirations, in our prayers, in 
our most sacred devotions. I believe assuredly that every 
one who seriously considers selfishness, and earnestly 
strives to eradicate it from his life, will often be led to 
exclaim with Paul, “Who will deliver me from the body of 
this death?” 

Let us examine more carefully what Paul said with re- 
gard to sin: “For sin, finding occasion, through the in- 
struction deceived me, and through it slew me.” “It is 
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” Here 
sin is spoken of as a cunning, malicious person, and this 
person is thought of as dwelling in the flesh. In anorher 
place we read: “Walk by the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil 
the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the 


SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


49 


Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, for these are con- 
trary the one to the other : that ye may not do the things 
that ye would.” (Gal. 5:16-22). Here the conflict is be- 
tween the flesh and the Spirit, while in the 7th chapter of 
Romans it is between sin and the ego. Paul adds a sum- 
mary of the sins committed by man and attributes them 
all to the flesh. A somewhat similar thought is expressed 
by our Savior in the Sermon on the mount : “If thy right 
eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from 
thee,” etc. Again we are told that Satan, the devil, is 
the leader in all that is bad. He deceives, tempts, blinds, 
fills the heart with evil thoughts and purposes. Of the 
passages that suggest themselves we will quote but three. 
In the parable of the tares Jesus explains that the sower 
of the tares, the evil in the world, is the devil. In his con- 
troversy with the Jews, Jesus says : “Ye are of your father 
the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to 
do. Evil men are here said to be the children of the 
devil, that is, they are under his influence. Paul says: 
“Finally be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his 
might. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be 
able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our 
wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the 
principalities, against the powers, against the world- 
rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of 
wickedness in heavenly places.” (Eph. 6:10-12). This 
passage tells us that our enemies are not flesh and blood 
but the devil and his host. Three distinct views are pre- 
sented by Paul, and in the New Testament in general. 
The flesh is represented as a conscious, active person, 
warring against the Spirit, and too often leading men into 
all manner of evil. It is difficult to see how flesh can 
have independent power for either good or evil. It is 
impossible to believe that God put spirit into a body, the 


50 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


substance of which was and is a conscious evil force capa- 
ble of combating and overpowering the good impulses of 
the spirit. Another view is that sin as a person dwells in 
the flesh, and that this indwelling person, and not the 
flesh itself is the enemy of the spirit, of the better self. 
But if sin is to be thought of as a person, it can be none 
other than Satan and his host. Satan has often been de- 
clared to be only evil personified, but that is not the 
teaching of the Bible. To the sacred writers he was 
neither a product of poetic fancy nor a scientific concept 
but a dire personality. Regarding the devil and his angels 
as real persons, and assuming that the word sin was 
sometimes used to designate the kingdom or organized 
force of the devil, and that this force, this power may 
dwell in the flesh, that is, operate immediately in and 
upon the flesh, the above mentioned views are easily har- 
monized. The kingdom of the devil is the real motive 
power to all evil passions and acts ; the flesh is its strong- 
hold so far as humanity is concerned, and therefore the 
flesh is sometimes spoken of as the power for evil. The 
chief characteristic of this power from the standpoint of 
the sacred writers is its sinfulness, and therefore it is 
designated straightway as sin, sin dwelling in the flesh. 
We must now recall what was said, when considering 
body, soul and spirit, viz., that every change in the body 
affects the spirit through the soul. Now if God has per- 
mitted demons to operate on the body, on the flesh, and 
this is everywhere assumed in the Bible, and if they have 
sufficient knowledge of the connection of body, soul and 
spirit, it is not difficult to conceive how they can arouse 
any particular appetite or desire, or start any desired 
train of thought, unless the spirit is powerful enough to 
counteract and repel the impulses coming from the flesh. 
But it is also possible that the flesh may acquire a sinful 


SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 51 

bent or tendency through habit. Psychologists tell us 
that when two or more parts of the brain have been fre- 
quently excited together in perception, a habit of joint 
excitation is the result, so that if one of these parts is 
excited alone, the others become excited by force of habit. 
For this reason the perception which arouses only pure 
and good thoughts in one soul, may arouse in another 
sinful desires. In this sense the flesh may become a power 
for evil as it may also be a power for good. Not only are 
the experiences of the individual potent in his own life 
for good or evil, but the experiences of the parents affect 
the children. Children are born having at least to some 
degree the mental and moral tendencies of their parents, 
so that the children of sinful parents commit sin more 
readily than would the children of parents who had never 
sinned. In this sense one may speak of original or in- 
herited sin. 

There are reasons for thinking that the life leaves its 
impress on the soul, and that this will remain after the 
soul is separted from the body. If desires are implanted 
in the soul that can be gratified only through the body, 
it must be evident that the soul must be at some incon- 
venience when absent from the body. Under circum- 
stances this inconvenience may amount to great torment. 

In beginning this subject we said that sin is the lack 
of due love for God and to one’s neighbor. That is mani- 
festly correct. But that is sin as a state. We have now 
learned of sin as a force, a terrible personality. From 
our discussion of the origin of sin, it must seem quite pos- 
pisble if not very probable that our first parents would 
have become selfish, even if they had not been approached 
by any tempter. But according to the history they re- 
ceived an evil impulse from without. A person who had 
become selfish might go on into deeper selfishness and into 


52 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


darker crimes even if not influenced in that direction by 
any other person; but the Bible constantly represents 
man as subject to the influence of wicked spirits. Sin is 
then at once a miserable state and a terrible force. As 
to the destructiveness of sin, it may be seen in the prisons, 
the hospitals, yea, in our homes and in our own bodies. 
Who can doubt the power of sin? Who can question the 
destructiveness of sin? We must strive to keep clearly in 
mind what sin is when we come to consider salvation, 
especially the forgiveness of sin. 

Sacrifice. 

The first act of worship or return to God was, as far 
as the record goes, the sacrifices or gifts offered by Cain 
and Abel. There is no indication that God required any 
sacrifice or gift. Indeed the reasonable inference from 
the account is that the act was voluntary on the part of 
the worshipers. The Hebrew word indicates that Abel’s 
offering was bloodless as well as Cain’s. In accordance 
with a widespread error, it has been very frequently as- 
sumed that God had given positive and explicit instruc- 
tions with regard to sacrificing, and that Abel’s offering 
was ceremonially correct, that is, exactly in harmony with 
the instructions God had given, and therefore accepted, 
while Cain’s offering was wrong, both in substance and 
form, and therefore rejected. Several objections to this 
theory present themselves at once. If the offering of sac- 
rifices had its origin in a positive command, it is difficult 
to see why it has been so generally practiced by all na- 
tions, during all ages. Then if this theory is true, the 
account must seem not only very imperfect, but quite 
misleading. The account does not suggest the theory but 
seems to indicate something very different. The natural 
inference is that the men brought the gifts out of an inner 


SACRIFICE. 


53 


impulse, and that God accepted Abel’s gift because be ac- 
cepted Abel. “And the Lord bad respect unto Abel and 
to bis offering.” He had respect first to Abel and then 
to his offering. The great God of all the universe, who 
needs nothing from the bands of men, will accept the poor- 
est gift that a pure and loving heart brings him, but the 
sinner cannot bribe him with all the wealth of earth. But 
the real origin and support of the theory that Abel’s of- 
fering was accepted because of its manner and kind, is 
the belief that God demanded blood. As this belief has 
no foundation in reason and is repugnant to a refined 
sensibility, it is strange that it has been held so long. But 
what do reason and refined sensibility avail against the 
plain words of Scripture? In Heb. 9:22 we read: “And 
without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” As 
this sentence has had so great influence we must stop to 
consider it. First, the whole passage from the 15th to 
the 22d verse is confessedly difficult. If we turn to the 
commentaries we shall learn that the author is talking 
about a covenant or about a testament, or that he has in 
mind now a covenant and now a testament, or that he 
is talking about both at once. In connection with this he 
speaks of the dedication of the tabernacle. One need not 
turn to the Pentateuch for authority for the statements 
here made. Our author is more nearly in accord with 
Josephus. They probably both followed the same tradi- 
tion, which differed in some respects from the account 
given in the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch oil seems to 
have been used more than blood as a means of consecra- 
tion. According to it one might say, almost all things 
were consecrated with oil. True our author does not say, 
almost all things are by the law consecrated, but purged, 
cleansed by blood. But he is certainly talking about the 
confirmation of a testament or a covenant and the dedica- 


54 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


tion of the tabernacle and its furniture. He must have 
thought of the consecration as a cleansing which is prop- 
er. Then comes this momentous sentence, “without shed- 
ding of blood there is no remission.” With us “shedding 
of blood” means killing. Here only the application of 
blood is meant. It should read, without pouring or 
sprinkling of blood. The word translated “remission” 
means sending or putting away, or letting go. Should 
the word sins or any other word be supplied after this? 
What might it mean taken alone? We have seen that 
the subject under consideration is the confirmation of 
testaments or covenants and the dedication or consecra- 
tion of the things pertaining to the service of the first 
covenant or testament. If the passage were translated, 
almost all things are by the law cleansed with blood, and 
without the application of blood there is no consecration, 
the meaning would be good. Remission of sins has not 
been considered in this chapter unless it be brought under 
the general head of putting away the worldly character 
of things by an act of consecration. Our author is not 
talking about the cleansing of sinners but about the 
cleansing of things. A meaning has been given to this 
passage that it cannot have. Moreover, if any one will 
bring the charge against our Heavenly Father that his 
grace must be purchased with blood, he must bring at 
least one clear statement to that effect from the teaching 
of Jesus. It is creditable neither to the head nor to the 
heart of theology that if extracted a doctrine so mon- 
strous from a somewhat obscure passage by such careless 
exegesis. 

As already said, the word rendered offering in the 
case of Abel indicates that it was a bloodless gift, that is, 
that the animals were not killed. The expression, “of the 
fat thereof” seems to point to a burnt offering. But this 


SACRIFICE. 


55 


might be translated, of the best of them, or of their milk. 
Of course, the Hebrew pointing is not binding. It only 
tells us how the Masorites understood the text. Abel 
may have set apart for the Lord the best of the firstlings, 
and given him their produce. This would be more rea- 
sonable than to kill them and burn their flesh. 

But some reader may be impatient to say that God cer- 
tainly did give Moses directions concerning animal sac- 
rifices, and said that he had given Israel blood upon the 
altar for a specific purpose. That is true, but to give direc- 
tions is one thing and to command is a very different thing. 
God gave instructions concerning the taking of vengeance, 
but he did not command to take an eye for an eye. He per- 
mitted this till he could teach men to love their enemies. 
That the instructions with regard to sacrifices given by 
the Lord through Moses are restrictive and regulative is 
shown by the language of the first chapters of Leviticus. 
In the beginning of the first chapter we read: "If any 
man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring 
your offering of the cattle, even of the herd and of the 
flock. If his oblation be a burnt offering of his herd, let 
him offer a male without blemish : he shall offer it of his 
own free will at the door of the tabernacle of the congre- 
gation before the Lord.” The expressions, "if his offering,” 
"if thy oblation,” etc., recur frequently in these chapters. 
This is not the language of injunction, but of permission 
and regulation. When we think of the excess to which 
sacrificing was carried by heathen nations, that they slew 
at times not only great numbers of animals but also of 
men, we well understand the necessity for regulations 
and restrictions with regard to offerings. In this connec- 
tion it will be instructive to consider a part of the 17th 
chapter of Leviticus which reads: "And the Lord spake 
unto Moses saying, Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, 


156 


W!HAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them: 
This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded, say- 
ing, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that 
killeth an ox or a lamb or a goat, in the camp, or killeth 
it without the camp, and hath not brought it to the door 
of the tent of meeting, to offer it as an oblation unto the 
Lord before the tabernacles of the Lord : blood shall be im- 
puted to that man, he hath shed blood; and that man 
shall be cut off from among his people, to the end that the 
children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they 
sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them 
to the Lord, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the 
priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace offerings 
unto the Lord. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood 
upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the tent of meet- 
ing and burn the fat for a sweet savor unto the Lord. 
And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the 
he goats after whom they go a whoring. This shall be a 
statute unto them forever throughout their generations. 
And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be 
of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn 
among them, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, 
and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting, 
to sacrifice it unto the Lord: even that man shall be cut 
off from his people.” This passage makes it very probable 
that the Israelites at that time looked upon every animal 
killed for food as a sacrifice to some god. This could not 
be changed at once, and so butchering had to be changed 
from a pagan act to an act of worship of the true God, or 
it would remain a menace to the morals of the people. 
From the standpoint of the educator it was the best thing 
that could be done. 

Let us see how the holy men of old regarded sacrifices. 
“Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken 


SACRIFICE. 


57 


than the fat of rams.” (1 Sam. 15:22). “Sacrifice and 
offering thon hast no delight in: mine ears hast thou 
opened; burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not re- 
quired. Then said I lo, I am come! In the roll of the 
book it is written of me: I desire to do thy will, O my 
God.” (Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10:6-8.) Here is the plain state- 
ment that God did not desire sacrifices and burnt offer- 
ings. “For thou delightest not in sacrifice, else would I 
give it: Thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering. The 
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ! a broken and a con* 
trite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” (Ps. 51:16). 
How clear and noble the perception of the Psalmist ! “For 
I spake not to your fathers nor commanded them in the 
day I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning 
burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded 
I them, saying, “Obey my voice and I will be your God, and 
ye shall be my people, and walk ye in all the ways I have 
commanded you that it may be well with you.” (Jer. 
7 :22) . The use to which Graf tried to put this passage is 
well known. But the only reasonable interpretation is 
that the prophet knew that what is said in the Pentateuch 
concerning sacrifices is permission and not command. 
“For I desire love and not sacrifice.” (Hos. 6:6; Matt. 
9 :13, 12-7) . Jesus quoted the Hebrew and not the Septua- 
gint which has been followed in Matthew’s Gospel and is 
a mistranslation. God does not ask mercy from man, but 
love, the affection of his heart. The holy men of old de- 
clare that God did not desire sacrifices, and Jesus ap- 
proves the declaration. Animal sacrifices then, had their 
origin in man’s effort to give God something. When the 
gift was brought out of pure gratitude it was accepted, no 
matter what it was. But God was continually revealing 
himself and his will more fully through the prophets. 
Through them he told us that he did not desire animal 


58 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


sacrifices, did not desire blood, but love, and through his 
Son he has told us that the right' way to give to God is 
to give to needy man. “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of 
these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.” 
(Matt. 25:40). 

Circumcision. 

The 17th chapter of Genesis contains the first mention 
of circumcision and has been believed to give the origin 
of that rite. The chapter reads as follows : 

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine the Lord ap- 
peared to Abram and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk 
before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant 
between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And 
Abram fell on his face; and God talked w T ith him, saying, As for 
me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father 
of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram; 
but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have 
I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will 
make nations of thee; and kings shall come out of thee. And I will 
establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to be a God 
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, 
and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, 
all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be 
their God. 

[And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant 
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This 
is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy 
seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised. 
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a 
token “of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight 
days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your 
generation, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of 
any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy 
house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be cir- 
cumcised; and my covenant shall be in y r our flesh for an everlasting 
covenant. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his fore- 
skin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; 
he hath broken my covenant. And God said unto Abraham], As for 
Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall 
her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: 
yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings 
of people shall be of her. 

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his 
heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? 
and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said 
unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, 
Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his 
name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an ever- 
lasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, 
I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him 


CIRCUMCISION. 


59 


fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly: twelve princes shall he 
beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will 
I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set 
time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God 
went up from Abraham. 

And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in 
his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male 
among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of 
their foreskin, in the self-same day. 

Be it observed that the requirement herein made of 
Abraham is a moral one and indeed the highest possible. 
“Walk before me and be perfect/’ Nothing can add to 
that. Whatever might be subjoined would only weaken it. 
The rendering, “And I will make my covenant between me 
and thee/’ is incorrect. It reads literally, I will give my 
covenant between me and thee. The meaning is I will 
give thee what I have pledged to thee in my covenant. This 
is not the making of a covenant, nor the promise to make 
a covenant, but the reaffirmation of the covenant already 
made, an account of which we have in the 15th chapter. 
There is no covenant made in this chapter unless it be 
the covenant of circumcision. If God did make a cove- 
nant of circumcision with Abraham, He had two cove* 
nants with him, one based on the highest moral ground, 
the other on an external fleshly sign, two things as unlike 
as things can be. But this dualism runs through the Old 
Testament, through the New and down through church 
history to the present day. Now it is declared that God’s 
favor can be gained only through the exercise of high 
moral principles, and again it is said to be secured 
through some insignificant externality. God cannot be 
the author of both representations. 

What is said in this chapter about circumcision is in 
no way connected with the change of Abraham’s name, 
yet it is thrust in between this and the change of Sarah’s 
name. If the chapter is read leaving out what I have 
bracketed, the connection will be found to be complete. 


60 


WlHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


The bracketed portion seems to be out of place. More- 
over some of the expressions seem discordant. Circum- 
cision is said to be the covenant and the sign of the 
covenant. It could hardly be both. If God said “my cove- 
nant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant,” 
Paul was wrong in saying, “He is not a Jew who is one 
outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward 
in the flesh.” (Rom. 2:28.) Paul argues, in Galatians 3 
that the Gentiles may be partakers of the blessings of 
Abraham’s covenant with God. Now, if circumcision was 
that covenant or any part of it, why should not the Gen- 
tiles be circumcised? Yet he says, “Behold, I Paul say 
unto you that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
you nothing.” 

In connection with the above the following passage 
must be considered: 

At that time the Lord said unto Joshua, Make thee flint knives, 
and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. And 
Joshua made him flint knives, and circumcised the children of 
Israel at the hill of the foreskins. And this is the cause why Joshua 
did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were 
males, even all the men of war died in the wilderness by the way, 
after they came out of Egypt. Now all the people that came out 
were circumcised; but all the people that were born in the wilder- 
ness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had 
not circumcised. For the children of Israel walked forty years in 
the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war which dame 
out of Egypt were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice 
of the Lord: unto whom the Lord sware that he would not shew 
them the land which the Lord sware unto their fathers that he would 
give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey. And their chil- 
dren, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: 
for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them 
by the way. — (Joshua 5:2-7.) 

According to this during the entire leadership of 
Moses not one child was circumcised. There was no 
hindrance in the way. They had time, and sharp stones 
could easily be obtained. Any one could circumcise. 
Mothers performed the rite. If there had been only some 
irregularities, if some children had not been circumcised 
on the eighth day, but a few days later, and some few not 


CIRCUMCISION. 


61 



circumcised at all, that would not be so surprising. But 
when it is said that during 40 years not one child was 
circumcised some explanation must be sought. 

It is assumed that Moses knew of the covenant of cir- 
cumcision, for we are told that he came near losing his 
life for neglecting to circumcise his son. 

And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: 
for all the men are dead which sought thy life. And Moses took 
his wife, and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned 
to the land of Egypt. And Moses took; the rod of God in his hand. 
And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, 
see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put 
in thine hand; but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let 
the people go. And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the 
Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born. And I say unto thee. 
Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let 
him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born. 

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met 
him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and 
cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said. 
Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go; then 
she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. — 
(Ex. 4:19-26.) 

In addition to this sharp warning against the neglect 
of this rite, we read (Ex. 12:43-48) that God instructed 
him that no circumcised male should eat of the passover, 
and (Lev. 12:3) that every male child should be cir- 
cumcised the eighth day. How could Moses after all 
this, neglect so important a matter; and why did God 
not reprove him or the people? Not only did he not re- 
prove him, but he declared “My servant Moses is faith- 
ful in all my house.” (Num. 12:7; Heb. 3:5.) As certain 
as the fact that a man cannot be faithful and disobedient 
at the same time, there is a grave conflict between Joshua 
5:5 and the other statements and commands concerning 
circumcision. That Moses was a faithful servant seems 
to be fully confirmed by the Scriptures in general. 
Joshua 5:5 seems to be true history since no motive, no 
occasion for its invention and insertion into the records 
can be found. How is it with the other passages? We 


62 


W|HAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


have already observed that Gen. 17 :9-14 separates close- 
ly related parts of the narrative. Ex. 4:19-26 is plainly 
an interpolation and is in itself not credible. Ex. 12 :43-50 
must also be regarded as a very awkward interpolation, 
since the foregoing passage tells us that the people had 
already eaten the passover and set out on their journey. 
It seems to be made up out of Num. 9 :11-14 with circum- 
cision added. Verse 50 is manifestly false, and must have 
been added by a later hand. Lev. 12:3 also breaks the 
connection. But we did not need to consider the instruc- 
tion said to have been given to Moses, for Jesus says 
that circumcision is not of Moses, but of the fathers. 
This statement made by our Savior is worthy of careful 
attention. 

The rendering of the correct reading* is : “For this rea- 
son because Moses gave you circumcision, not that it is 
of Moses but of the fathers, even on the Sabbath ye cir- 
cumcise a man.” (John 7 :21.) That this is the correct 
reading is shown by the following sentence which contains 
a reasoning based on this verse. “If a man receive circum- 
cision on the Sabbath that the Law of Moses may not be 
broken, etc.” That is, you think Moses commanded you 
to circumcise a child on the eighth day, and therefore 
you circumcise on the Sabbath that the law of Moses 
may not be broken. It is worthy of note that Jesus 
stopped to correct the false notion that prevailed w T ith 
regard to the origin of circumcision. If God command- 
ed what is written in Ex. 12 :43-48 and Lev. 12 :3, circum- 
cision is part of the law given through Moses, so that 
the statement that circumcision is not of Moses is hardly 
justifiable unless we say that the entire law is not of 
Moses. If God incorporated circumcision in his cove- 

*5ta tovto on 6 Mwutnjs deduKcv vp.lv rijv TrepiTO/jLrjv, oi>x & TL 
eK tov M wvaews, aXX’ Ik. twv ira repuv y kt\. 


CIRCUMCISION. 


63 


nant with Abraham, and in the law he gave through 
Moses, strictly speaking, circumcision is neither of Moses 
nor of the fathers, but of God. If circumcision was any 
part of God’s covenant with Abraham, we should not 
expect Jesus to say that it was of the fathers, for that 
expression really means that it was a custom handed 
down from the fathers. Let us seek an explanation of 
the facts we now have before us. 

The Egyptians practiced circumcision. This is shown 
by the monuments and still more clearly by an examina- 
tion of the mumimies. Abraham had opportunity to learn 
about circumcision in Egypt. By his call and still more 
by his covenant with God, he was impressed with the 
thought that he and his offspring were to be a peculiar 
people. It is not unreasonable that he should choose cir- 
cumcision as a sign to distinguish him, his children, and 
his servants from the other inhabitants of the land of 
Canaan, but it would be difficult to explain why God 
should choose that as a sign of his covenant, which was 
common to many other people. Abraham having chosen 
circumcision for this purpose, it was practiced by his 
descendants in the land of Canaan and was continued 
in Egypt partly by force of habit and partly, no doubt, 
because it was the common custom of the land. When 
they left Egypt they ceased to circumcise, perhaps, be- 
cause it was an Egyptian custom. When they entered the 
land of Canaan, in which they were to keep themselves 
separate from all the other inhabitants, they thought 
it good to adopt circumcision as Abraham had done. 
That later generations should think that everything done 
by the fathers, was done by divine direction is natural 
enough. 

Alongside of the Hebrew writings were oral tra- 
ditions which came to be held as sacred as the 


64 WiHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

writings. One tradition said that God had enjoined cir- 
cumcision with his covenant with Abraham, or that cir- 
cumcision was that covenant; another tradition told 
how Moses nearly lost his life for neglecting circumci- 
sion; another that God had given Moses strict command 
concerning circumcision; and still another, that God 
had commanded Joshua to circumcise the people. In the 
great struggle for national existence under Antiochus, 
when the death penalty was put upon circumcision, when 
the pious Jew slew those who wished to forsake the 
customs of their fathers and when so many copies of 
the law were destroyed, there were both incentive and 
opportunity to insert these traditions into the writings. 
(See chapters 1 and 2 of I Maccabees.) The only reason 
against fixing this as the time in which all these tradi- 
tions were put into the sacred writings is that Paul’s 
argument in the third chapter of Galatians assumes 
that circumcision was not connected with the covenant 
with Abraham, but only with the law which came 430 
years after. According to this the tradition of the cove- 
nant of circumcision could not have been put into the 
writings till after Paul’s time. The controversy between 
the Jews and Christians concerning circumcision mgy 
have been the reason for the interpolation. 

Two passages as they now stand are opposed to the 
conclusion that the interpolation in Genesis was made 
as late as Paul’s time. Stephen says, “and he gave him 
a covenant of circumcision.” (Acts 7-8.) A brief state- 
ment like this can have no weight against an extended 
argument as found in Galations 3. If Stephen said, 
“and he gave him a covenant,” the word circumcision 
could easily be added. But it is not so easy to insert 
words in a train of reasoning, and yet this very thing 
seems to me to have been done in Romans 4, part of 
which reads: 


CIRCUMCISION. 


65 


What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining 
to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, 
he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the 
scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for 
righteousness. Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reck- 
oned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but be- 
lieved on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the 
man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, 
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are 
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon 
the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to 
Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he 
was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but 
in uncircumcision. 

[And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righte- 
ousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he 
might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not 
circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; 
And the father of circumcision to them w r ho are not of the circum- 
cision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father 
Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.] 

For the promise that he should be the heir of the world w T as not 
to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righte- 
ousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is 
made void, and the promise made of none effect. 

If Abraham received circumcision as a seal of his 
righteousness, there is no reason why Gentiles who wish 
to be partakers of the benefits of Abraham’s covenant, 
should not receive the same seal. Would the promised 
blessings be sure without the seal? If the bracketed por- 
tion of the above be left out the argument is just the same 
as in Galations 3 and is good and valid; but if this por- 
tion be retained as genuine, the whole argument is in- 
validated. I therefore believe this to be a gloss that 
found its way into the text. But whether it be a gloss 
or not, certain it is that Paul did not regard circum- 
cision as necessary to the completion of Abraham’s 
covenant, for he insisted that all Gentiles may and 
should be in the same covenant relation with God in 
which Abraham lived, and yet he insisted that they 
should not be circumcised. Circumcision was therefore un- 
necessary for Abraham also, just as unnecessary as it was 
for Titus or any other Gentile. 


G6 W1HAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

God’s purpose of the ages is that man shall be conform- 
ed to the likeness of his son. Reason can discover no way 
in which the institution of circumcision could contribute 
to this end, and history shows that it did not contribute 
to true holiness, but only to Pharisaism. It is therefore 
unreasonable to think that God instituted circumcision. 
Moses did not cause the people to circumcise their chil- 
dren, and did not reprove them for neglecting it. This 
is conclusive evidence that God gave Moses no command 
concerning circumcision, and that Moses did not know 
that it was any part of God’s covenant with Abraham. 
The passages discredited by the conduct of Moses are all 
found on candid examination to be interpolations. Jesus 
said that circumcision was not of Moses but of the 
fathers, yet Paul seems not to have read that it was a 
part of God’s covenant with Abraham. Jesus must 
therefore have meant that it was a custom handed down 
from the fathers. Everything tends to confirm the truth 
of this. Abraham and afterward Joshua chose circum- 
cision as a mark to distinguish Hebrews from the other 
inhabitants of Canaan. It was certainly not a divine 
institution. 

Washing. 

The first mention of washing in the Bible, except the 
washing of feet, is contained in the instruction given 
by Jacob to his household. “Then said Jacob unto his 
household and to all that were with him; put away the 
strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, 
and change your clothes.” (Gen. 35:2.) The word wash 
does not occur in the text, but the act is implied in the 
command, “purify yourselves and change your clothes.” 
Jacob intended that his family should enter upon a new 
manner of life. They were to put away their idols and 
come nearer to the living God who had answered him in 


WASHING. 


G7 


the days of his distress. With many people the resolu- 
tion to break off from the old corrupt life, and to enter 
upon a new and purer life, would be greatly strengthened 
by a good bath and the putting on of clean clothes. The 
thought of bathing and changing one’s clothes at such a 
turn in life comes naturally enough, so that it is quite 
unnecessary to suppose that Jacob thus commanded his 
household under the verbal direction of the Lord. His 
conscience moved him to devote himself and his house 
more fully to the service of the Lord, and the prepara- 
tion naturally suggested itself. 

Similar to the instruction given by Jacob to his house- 
hold is that found in Exodus 19:10-15. “And the Lord 
said unto Moses, go unto the people and sanctify them 
today and tomorrow and let them wash their clothes.” 
On this passage Adamj Glarke remarks: “Let them wash 
their clothes and consequently bathe their bodies for ac- 
cording to the testimony of the Jews, these always went 
together. It was necessary, that as they were about to 
appear in the presence of God, every thing should be 
clean and pure about them; that they might be admon- 
ished by this of'the necessity of inward purity of which 
the outward washing was the emblem. From these in- 
stitutions, the heathen appeared to have borrowed their 
precepts relative to washings and purifications previous- 
ly to their offering sacrifices to their gods, examples of 
which abound in Greek and Latin writers. They washed 
their hands and clothes, and bathed their bodies in pure 
water, before they performed any act of religious wor- 
ship.” 

Why should one suppose that the Gentiles borrowed 
the idea of washing in connection with religious cere- 
monies? A very moderate sense of propriety would 
lead one to bathe and put on clean clothes before com- 


68 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


ing into the presence of any great personage whether hu- 
man or divine. 

Priestly washings are first spoken of in connection 
with the consecration of Aaron and his sons. “Thou 
shalt bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the 
tent of meeting and shalt wash them with water.” (Ex. 
29:4; Lev. 8:6.) Here Moses seems to be commanded tq 
wash the priests, but as in all other passages the priests 
are instructed to wash themselves it is probable that 
Moses was merely to bid them wash themselves. ( See Ex. 
30 : 18-21 and Lev. 16 :3-4.) These w T ashings were intended 
to cleanse the body and to teach personal cleanliness. 
Only priests were required to wash at fixed times. But 
every unclean thing must be washed and every defiled 
person must bathe himself. Running or living water was 
the chief means of purification. So fully was the act of 
washing connected or identified with purification that 
the word wash is used where a physical cleansing in 
water was impossible. “Wash me and I shall be whiter 
than snow.” (Ps. 51:7.) “O Jerusalem, wash thine heart 
from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved.” ( Jer. 4 :14.) 
Jeremiah knew well that water could not wash away sin, 
for in the second chapter and 22d verse he says, “for 
though thou wash thyself with lye and take much soap, 
yet thine iniquity is marked before me saith the Lord 
God.” Washing is also included in Isaiah’s call to re 
formation. “Your new moons and your appointed feasts 
my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary 
to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, 
I will hide mine eyes from you; yea when ye make many 
prayers I will not hear; your hands are full of blood, 
Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your 
doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to 
do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the 


ANOINTING. 


69 


fatherless, plead for the widow.” (Is. 1:14-17.) In har- 
mony wfith other like proclamations from the days of 
Moses (Ex. 19 :10) unto the days of John, Isaiah probably 
meant that the people should bathe and wash their 
clothes, although he knew as well as Jeremiah that water 
could not remove sin. 

Anointing. 

The practice of anointing with oil, either pure or mix- 
ed with spices, was universal in the East, and must have 
become so at a very early date. Whether the first im- 
pulse to the use of oil in this way came from some real 
or supposed sanitary value, or for the sake of fragrance 
cannot now be determined. To the ordinary use of 
anointing was soon added that of consecrating, that is, 
not only persons, but also things were set apart to a 
special or sacred use by the application of oil. This is 
the first use of oil mentioned in the Bible. “And Jacob 
rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he 
had put for his pillow and set it up for a pillar, and 
poured oil on the top of it.” (Gen. 28:18.) Oil was used 
in consecrating the tabernacle and all that was in or 
connected with it. Indeed in the service of the taber- 
nacle oil seems to have had a higher significance than 
blood had. The high priests were set apart by the 
anointing with oil, and the Hebrew name Messiah and 
its Greek translation, Christ, means anointed. 

The Law. 

The division into ceremonial law and moral law, if not 
made on a misconception, is at least misleading. The im- 
pression is made that God instituted certain forms that 
were indifferent in themselves. We have seen that God 
did not institute sacrifices, but did regulate them. These 
regulations were conducive to morality, and are to that 


70 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


extent a part of the moral law. All that God communi* 
cated through Moses was to benefit man physically or 
morally, and every physical benefit that God confers on 
man should result in a moral benefit also. So, strictly 
speaking, the whole law was moral. “For we know that 
the law is spiritual.” (Rom. 7 :14.) 

Jesus, the Christ. 

There are various difficulties in the way of arriving at 
a proper conception of Jesus the Savior of men. He is 
so much greater than we, so much above us, that we can* 
not reach up to him and measure him fully. This natural 
and necessary difficulty is greatly increased by the fact 
that we were all taught concerning Jesus at an age when 
we could do nothing but receive what was presented to 
us. When we try to enter upon an independent study 
of this great character, we find our minds occupied by 
an idea, an image of him, which of course is dear to 
us on account of association and memories of the past 
as well as on account of its own value. This image will 
not readily give place to a new one. The passages of 
scripture that bear on his character and work we have 
heard explained so often, that the reading of them now 
only suggests the familiar interpretations. Jesus warns 
us too in regard to judging Him. The passage referred 
to does not seem to have that meaning as it stands in 
our English translation, where it reads : “But He looked 
upon them and said, What then is this that is written, the 
stone which the builders rejected, the same was made 
the head of the corner? Every one that falleth on that 
stone shall be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it shall 
fall, it will scatter him as dust.” (Luke 20:17) The 
word translated “will scatter” means to winnow, to 
clean grain by removing the chaff. On whomsoever it 


JESUS, THE CHRIST. 


71 


shall fall it will winnow him. The translators must 
have thought it improper to predicate the act of win- 
nowing of a falling stone. But Jesus was speaking of 
himself, and he does not fall on anyone as a stone from 
the mountain side or from a wall; neither can anyone 
stumble over Him as over a stone in the field or on the 
road. From the context it is clear that by the word fall 
he means to judge, pronounce judgment on. Whoso- 
ever shall pronounce judgment on Jesus shall be broken, 
but Jesus will cleanse the man on whom he pronounces 
judgment. This latter statement is not true when the 
judging is objective. It is true only when the judging 
takes place in the consciousness of the man, that is, 
when the man places himself under the judgment of 
Jesus. The man who, perched upon his self-conceit, 
pronounces judgment on Jesus shall be broken, but the 
man who allows Jesus to sit in judgment on him, that is, 
who examines himself in the light of the life and teach- 
ing of Jesus, shall be cleansed. To judge one’s self thus 
one must know the life and teaching of Jesus, and to 
make the acquaintance of Jesus we must approach Him 
in deep humility and with great reverence. 

How Jesus Would Have Men Consider Him. 

The stories of the generation and birth of Jesus given 
by Matthew and Luke, I fully accept. I see no reason 
for questioning the virgin birth of our Savior. But this 
has been and is a stumbling block to many. It is worthy 
of note that Jesus nowhere mentions or in any way 
refers to the nature, place or circumstances of his birth, 
notwithstanding the Jews gave him occasion to speak 
of these things. “Is not this the son of Joseph?” (John 
0:42.) “Doth the Christ come out of Galilee?” (John 
7 :27.) Jesus could certainly have proved, if necessary, by 


72 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

the testimony of an angel that he was not the son of 
Joseph, and also that he was not born in Galilee, but in 
Bethlehem. Did Jesus do anything to counteract or 
correct these errors? This leads to the question how 
did Jesus present himself to the people? The transla- 
tors of the Gospel of John seem to have thought that 
he was always urging his claim to the Messiahship, for 
they makq Jesus say, “except ye believe that I am he, 
ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8 :25.) The word “he” is 
supposed to stand for Messiah. One must admit that this 
would be an indefinite way of speaking. Moreover, the 
following question is not consistent with this translation 
and interpretation, for if Jesus had just told them that 
he was he, meaning the Messiah, why should they at once 
ask, “Who art thou?” It should be noted that the word 
“he” has been supplied by the translators. There is no 
apparent reason why John should have omitted it, if he 
had it in mind. But that Jesus should have omitted the 
predicate and left the people to guess what should be 
supplied is inconceivable. If he meant, except ye believe 
that I am he, why did he not say so? If he meant by 
that, except ye believe that I am the Messiah, the Son 
of God, why did he not say that? Why should he mince 
words? The sentence may be translated, except ye be- 
lieve what I am, etc. The question, “Who art thou?” 
which immediately follows is quite consistent with this 
translation. The situation was this. Jesus had healed 
a man on the Sabbath. This seemed to the Jews to be 
wrong. To the dews of that day the keeping of the 
Sabbath was a sacrament. Circumcision was to them 
also a sacrament, and indeed a more important sacra- 
ment than the keeping of the Sabbath. Therefore the 
doctors of the law had declared that it was right to cir- 
cumcise a child on the Sabbath. (See the chapter on Sac* 


SIN' AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


73 


raments, page 204.) Jesus tried to induce them to judge 
righteous judgment, (John 7 :25) that is, to estimate 
everything at its real value. Everywhere Jesus calls 
on the people to hear, see, think, to judge rightly. His 
answer to the question, “Who art thou?” is in harmony 
with this, but unfortunately it has been obscured by the 
translation, which reads: “Even the same that I have 
said to you from the beginning.” This should read : “In 
the first place what I say to you.” Jesus wished them to 
hear his words candidly and to judge them justly. If 
they found them good, they should receive them, believe 
them. That would have been sufficient for the beginning. 

The following passage is worthy of careful attention : 

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was 
winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then 
came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost 
thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus 
answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do 
in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, 
because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear 
my voice, and I know' them, and they follow me: And I give unto 
them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck 
them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater 
than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 
I and my Father are one. 

Then the Jew r s took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered 
them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for 
w T hich of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, say- 
ing, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy, and 
because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered 
them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called 
them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture 
cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, 
and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the 
Son; of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the w r orks: that ye 
may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in hirm — 
(John 10:22-28.) 

To the direct demand of the Jews Jesus said, “I told 
you and ye believe not.” This might be taken to mean 
that he had told them in plain words that he was the 
Christ. But a more careful examination of the whole 
leads to the conclusion that he meant that they would 
have known that he was the Christ, if they had received 


74 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


his words in the candid way he demanded, and that is 
necessary to a just decision. If they had heard his words 
properly, these would have told them who he was. Not 
only so, but the works which he did in his Father’s name 
declared the same and thereby corroborated them. He 
seems to make a farther concession to the weakness of 
human understanding when he says, “though ye believe 
not me, believe the works that ye may know and under- 
stand that the Father is in me and I in the Father.” 
If they had judged his work righteously, they would 
have seen that the Father was working in and through 
him, and that his works were done in the name, in the 
character, in the spirit of the Father. If they had seen 
so much, that would have been a good beginning that 
’would finally have led to the desired goal, namely to the 
knowledge that he was the Savior of men and not a sinner 
as they supposed. From all this we see that Jesus de- 
manded only a candid, unbiased consideration of his 
words and works. This every man has a right to expect 
and demand of his fellows. Not to grant this is unjust 
to any man. Jesus made no extravagant demand upon 
either the intellect or the honesty of the people. When 
men wished to know who he was he pointed to his words 
and his works and asked men to weigh these properly 
and to think of him accordingly. The man who will 
not accord to the words and works of Jesus this candid 
consideration must die in his sins, for he is dishonest. 
The way Jesus presented himself to men is at once so 
humble and so manly that it should receive a hearty 
recognition and response. Not only did he meet men in 
a most manly way, but he offered to help them over every 
difficulty of understanding, if they would only be honest 
with him. He said : “If any man willeth to do his will, 
he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God or 


SIN' AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


75 


whether I speak of myself.” (John 7 :17.) Of course he 
does not mean an occasional wish, a hesitating or spas- 
modic desire, but a constant earnest will to do the will 
of God. Every man should have this will to do God’s 
will. That is in itself reasonable and right. Herein 
Jesus does not ask men to do anything hazardous, but 
simply what they under all circumstances ought to do. 
Jesus does not explain the process by which a man at- 
tains to a knowledge of his teaching, but he says, “he 
shall know.” The condition is reasonable and the promise 
clear and definite. No one need therefore be in doubt 
with regard to Jesus or his doctrine. The doubt that is 
in the world is not because of any criticism, but because 
men will not judge righteous judgment, or have not the 
will to do the will of God. So long as there are men 
and women who judge righteous judgment and have the 
will to do the will of God, faith in Jesus will not cease 
from the earth, and this faith will be out of the reach 
of all criticism for it will be wrought in the heart by 
the Lord himself. 

Was Jesus Free From Sin? 

According to the Gospel story, Jesus was conceived 
and born of a woman. His mother was human and 
therefore sinful. We may suppose that she was the 
best of all women, but that will not permit us to say 
that she was sinless. Here then is Job’s question : “Who 
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” As the 
Scriptures include all under sin, we must think of Mary 
as not only having a taint of sin, but as having commit- 
ted sin. How then could Jesus be born free from all 
taint of sin? We must not trust to tradition or to 
human reasoning, we must examine the Scriptures on 
this question. . , 


76 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” 
If this only means that the Word was clothed with a 
body somewhat as a man might put on a coat, it would 
indicate little or nothing with regard to the moral con- 
dition of Jesus. But the expression “became flesh” does 
not necessarily or even naturally mean was clothed with 
a body. In the first place, there is a difference in the 
New Testament between body and flesh. But flesh is 
not always used to indicate a moral condition. When 
Paul says: “All flesh is not the same flesh; but there 
is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and an- 
other flesh of birds, and another flesh of fishes,” he does 
not mean to indicate a difference in moral states. He 
is speaking merely of a material substance. The ques- 
tion is, what did John mean when he said the Word 
became flesh. Did he mean the substance flesh, or the 
moral condition flesh? If we say he meant the moral 
condition, we must understand that Jesus was to some 
degree affected, tainted or contaminated with sin. This 
view is certainly contrary to the generally accepted belief 
of Christian people. Not only so, but it seems to con- 
tradict some statements of Scripture. Immediately one 
seems to hear the words of Jesus, “Which of you con- 
victeth me of sin?” One feels at once rebuked by this 
challenge so gently yet so firmly made. But we remem- 
ber that when the rich young man came with great haste 
and earnestness to Jesus to learn what good thing he 
should do to inherit eternal life, he said with equal 
frankness: “Why cal lest thou me good? There is none 
good but God.” It might seem in this passage that Jesus 
under a sense of imperfection refused the appellation 
good. But this may not be the meaning of the words. 
The young man came saying good master. Jesus says, 
why callest thou me good? That is, what have you seen 


WAS JESUS FREE FROM SIN? 


77 


in my life that leads you to call me good? If you have 
discovered that which is good in my life, you also know 
what would be good in your life, for there are not 
various kinds of goodness, there is but one kind. All 
good is wrought in God. What Jesus said was intended 
to lead the young man to self-examination. This was 
a common practice with Jesus. Possibly then this was 
the chief intention in asking: “Which of you convicteth 
me of sin ?” The words which of you seem to favor that 
view. A man, conscious of his integrity, may say to h-is 
opponents, which of you convicts me of sin, when he 
would not consciously step before him that sitteth upon 
the great white throne and say, I am as pure and holy 
as thou. These words uttered in a controversy with the 
Jews claim absolute perfection for Jesus as little as the 
words to the rich young man deny the same. There are 
two passages which are very different in their words, yet 
very similar in import, and both seem to affirm the sinless- 
ness of Jesus. “For we have not a high priest that can- 
not be touched with a feeling of our affirmities; but one 
that hath been tempted in all points like as we are yet 
without sin.” (Heb. 4:15.) Him who knew no sin he made 
to be sin on our behalf ; that we might become the right- 
eousness of God in him. (2d Cor. 5:21.) The first pas- 
sage says that Jesus was without sin and the second 
that he knew no sin. These passages are so far clear 
and strong, and would certainly be sufficient to settle 
the whole question, were it not for the sentences 
with which each is coupled. The writer of the letter 
to the Hebrews says that Jesus was tempted in all 
points like as we are. James says, “each man is tempt- 
ed when he is drawn away by his own lusts and enticed. 
It is quite certain that if he found no law in his mem- 
bers warring against the law of his mind (Rom. 7), he 


78 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

was not tempted as Paul was. Indeed if in his flesh 
there was no impulse to sin, the first part of the above 
quotation from Hebrews can have little force. Does it 
not say: “We have a high priest that can be touched 
with a feeling of our infirmities, for he has been in all 
points tempted like as we are?” What can this mean 
other than that he felt the power of sin in his own flesh, 
in his own body? But he did not yield. He did find 
a different law in his members, the law of sin, warring 
against the law of his mind, but it failed to bring him 
into captivity under the law of sin and therefore the 
writer adds, “yet without sin.” The statement in 2d 
Cor. 5:21 is somewhat stronger. “Him God made to be 
sin.” Some have understood this passage to mean that 
God made Jesus to be a sin offering. The rea- 
son for this interpretation is that it is in harmony 
with a very generally accepted view of the atonement, 
and a Hebrew word for sin was also used to denote sin- 
offering. It has not been shown, perhaps never even 
affirmed, that the Greek word here used ever designated 
a sin-offering. To show this would be helpful, if not 
quite necessary to the above interpretation. In Eng- 
lish no one would use the word sin for sin-offering. Now, 
if it is true that the Greek word in question never meant 
sin-offering elsewhere, some justification for saying, 
that it has this meaning in this passage would be needed. 
That the insertion of the word offering brings the passage 
into harmony with a certain theory of the atonement 
proves nothing. This theory of the atonement has been 
and may be called in question, and may be declared 
to be in conflict with the Bible. Uutil it is shown 
that the passage means something different from what 
it seems to mean, we are confronted with the very 
strong statement that God made Jesus to be sin. 


WAS JESUS FREE FROM SIN? 79 

If the clause “who knew no sin” is understood to apply 
to his experiences preceding the time when he was made 
sin, it will present no difficulty. But if it is understood 
to be general, it w T ould involve a contradiction. If we 
understand that the Word became flesh, that is, God 
made the Word flesh, brought the Word in a state, a con- 
dition in wfliich the Word met, felt in his own body the 
powers of sin, then there is no disagreement between 
the parts of the statement. Some light may be thrown 
on this passage by Rom. 8:3. “For what the law could 
not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending 
his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin 
condemned sin in the flesh.” God sent his own Son in the 
likeness of sinful flesh. Does this mean God sent his 
Son in sinful flesh? Why the word likeness ? If he sent 
his Son in flesh free from all taint of sin, wherein is 
the likeness to sinful flesh? His flesh could be like ours 
only in outward form and appearance. How then did 
he condemn sin in the flesh? Likeness is not a very def- 
inite term. There may be likeness where there is very 
great difference, but where there is absolute likeness there 
is no difference at all. Is absolute likeness meant here 
or only some faint similarity? It is clear that we have 
before us a passage that is susceptible of various inter- 
pretations. Some are willing to see only a faint re- 
semblance between the body of Jesus and that of other 
men, wdiile others, a few others, think there is an abso- 
lute sameness. The words of Peter are more explicit. 
“For what glory is it, if, when ye sin, and are buffeted 
for it, ye shall take it patiently? But if when ye do 
well, and suffer for it ye shall take it patiently, this is 
acceptable with God. For hereunto were ye called; be- 
cause Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an ex- 
ample, that ye should follow in his steps who did no sin, 


80 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was 
reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered, threatened 
not; but committed himself to him that judgeth; 
who his own self bare our sins in his body up to the tree, 
that we having died unto sins, might live unto righteous- 
ness; by whose stripes ye are healed.” The usual reading 
is: “he bare our sins in his body upon the tree.” (2 Pet. 
1:24.) It says he bare our sins in his body. This is fre- 
quently, perhaps generally understood to mean, he bore 
in his body the punishment which we should suffer for 
our sins. That, every one will see, is something very dif- 
ferent. If it means that he bore the punishment for our 
sins, it does not say so. It would be difficult to see how 
he could bear the sinful acts of all individuals in any 
sense. If it means that he endured the assaults of sin, 
was tempted in all points like as we are, then it is true 
that he bore in his body the sins common to humanity. 
In the garden, Jesus said : “The spirit indeed is willing, 
but the flesh is weak.” This was true not only of the 
disciples then present, but of Paul and all other disci- 
ples. It was a general statement. Did it apply to Jesus 
also? Was Jesus speaking from his own experience? 
Was he here touched with the feeling of the infirmity 
(weakness) of his disciples? If it be said that his flesh 
was not weak, whence came the anguish in the garden? 
To save him from weakness in the flesh we will not place 
that weakness in the spirit. He prayed: “O my Father, 
if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me; never- 
theless, not as I will but as thou wilt.” He seems to 
recognize and admit that he had a will that was not in 
harmony with his Father’s will. A will that is in any- 
wise different from the will of God is certainly not 
wholly right. When we study this prayer, which is not 
an utterance made in controversy with the Jews, or in 


WAS JESUS FREE FROM SIN? 


81 


instructing someone, but an outpouring of the soul be- 
fore God, we may find it difficult to see that he did not 
do wrong in allowing a desire to arise in his heart that 
he knew was contrary to the will of his Father. He who 
taught that the desire is already adultery in the heart, 
knew that the very inception of a will that is contrary 
to the will of God is- wrong. It is certainly possible 
to interpret this prayer so as to leave no shadow of 
wrong upon Jesus. One may argue that he did not have 
a will contrary to the will of his Father, that he did not 
know what the will of his Father was in the matter, and 
when he ventured to express his will, he made haste to 
declare his willingness to relinquish his desire and to 
accept his Father’s will. Such an act is only praise- 
worthy. But he had foretold his death, and he certainly 
knew that it was his Father’s will that he should be de- 
livered into the hands of wicked men. While it is true 
that his prayer seems to have to do with this delivery 
into the hands of wicked men, yet for the sake of theory 
one might suppose that his prayer was concerning some- 
thing else about which we know nothing. If he did not 
know his Father’s will, then only beautiful submission is 
expressed in the prayer; if he knew his Father’s will, he 
also knew that his own will was in some respect differ- 
ent and therefore wrong. If he had persisted in his 
will, he would have been rebellious against God. But the 
submission was prompt and complete. If we are per- 
mitted to think that he, as did Paul, only in a much more 
perfect degree, served God with his mind, but on this 
occasion, if on no other, the flesh was weak, there will 
not be much difficulty in understanding the garden scene 
with the prayer. But if anyone feels that it is necessary 
to maintain that the body of Jesus was free from all 
human weakness, and human weakness is only the result 


82 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


of sin, one must argue that his praying was not con- 
nected with the suffering he was to endure. The un- 
prejudiced examination of all passages we have con- 
sidered ought to make the impression upon one that in 
the body, in the flesh of Jesus, were the incentives to 
sin common to humanity. He met sin first in his own 
person. But why interrogate the Scriptures as to wheth- 
er the body of Jesus had in it the seeds of sin? What- 
ever may be true in this respect with regard to the body, 
the flesh that was nailed to the cross, his present body 
is certainly tainted with sin, and that to a very painful 
degree, if so be that the church is the body of Christ, and 
we are all members of that body. But there is nothing 
more earnestly and urgently taught by Paul than that 
the church is the body of Christ. 

Many passages might be quoted to show this, but it 
is unnecessary, for no Christian doubts it. It will, how- 
ever, be said, perhaps by the great majority if not by 
all, that the word body is here used in a figurative sense. 
What is meant by figurative sense? The men and women 
composing the church are certainly real beings. If then 
the Spirit of Jesus is a reality, and if this Spirit dwells 
in the hearts of men and women, then the church is the 
body of Jesus. 

The Pharisees thought it wrong for Jesus to associate 
with sinners. They thought he ought to keep himself 
quite aloof from them. This seems to be the human view 
of what would be proper for the Word, the Savior of men 
to do and be in relation to sinful humanity. Some 
thought that it comported better with his dignity not to 
have a body at all. It must be only an apparent body, 
a phantom. Others thought that his mother at least 
ought to be sinless. He might have a real body if born 
of a mother wflio was free from all taint of sin. Many 


FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 


83 


well meaning persons have thought to honor Jesus by 
removing him as far as possible from sinful humanity. 
The Bible, unpharisaic as it is in every respect, brings 
Jesus into the closest contact with our sinful nature. 
The Word became flesh and dwelt among men. God sent 
his Son in the form of sinful flesh concerning sin, and 
condemned sin in the flesh. 

Atonement. 

The theories of the atonement have been many and 
various. All shades of view have been held from that of 
the angry God who poured out the vials of his wrath on 
his only Son to satisfy his justice, so that he might 
pardon sinful man, or that Jesus stepped in between 
his angry Father and sinful man and rescued him by 
receiving in his own person what man deserved, to that 
of the kind and benevolent God who requires no satis- 
faction but pities his weak creature man and sends his 
Son to proclaim his grace. It will be observed that the 
estimate of sin changes with the view of the atonement. 
Those who hold that God’s justice demands satisfaction, 
think sin a hateful thing worthy of the severest punish- 
ment, while those who think that God requires no sat- 
isfaction regard sin as a light matter, the mistakes of 
weak creatures, or perhaps not even mistakes, but rath- 
er the natural and necessary consequences of man’s na- 
ture and condition, for which he is not responsible. All 
these views have proved to be unsatisfactory. The atone- 
ment cannot be understood without a clear conception 
of the forgiveness of sin. 

Forgiveness of Sin. 

In beginning this investigation it will be well to get 
clearly before our minds the common conception of for- 
giveness, which we may do by turning to Webster, who 


84 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

tells us that the word forgive means to give up resent- 
ment or claim to requital on account of (an offense or 
wrong) ; to remit the penalty of. To cease to feel resent- 
ment against, on account of wrong committed; to give 
up claim to requital from or retribution upon (an of- 
fender) . 

Shall we say that God gave up his feeling of resent- 
ment against us, and all claim to requital from us, and 
of retribution upon us on account of our transgressions? 
But we are told that God so loved the world that he 
gave his only begotten Son through whom we are said 
to have forgiveness. God’s love brought Jesus into the 
world; therefore it is absurd to say that Jesus induced 
God to relinquish his resentment against man. But some 
one will say that God has just claim to retribution upon 
man, the offender. Did not Jesus teach us to love our 
enemies, and to do good unto all who injure us? Shall 
not God then love his enemies and do good to those who 
despitefully use him? He does do so, and that con- 
tinually, and Jesus admonishes us to be like him in this 
respect. The word forgive as defined by Webster cannot 
be predicated of God, for he feels no resentment and 
claims no retribution. But it will be said that when 
man sinned God had the right to punish him, but he 
chose to exercise mercy. This statement comes of un- 
clear thinking. If at a given time it is right to punish 
a given man, God cannot choose to let the man go un- 
punished. God must choose that which is right, and no 
act and its opposite can at the same time be right, since 
no act can at the same time be right and wrong. Abso- 
lute right is personified in God, and he may not be false 
or contrary to himself. Therefore the thought that God 
sometimes does the opposite of what strict justice or 
right demands is absurd. But it is finally not a question 


FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 


85 


of punishing or not punishing, but of bringing man out 
of sin, or leaving him eternally in sin. To leave man in 
sin is to leave him in misery. If man is to be happy he 
must be delivered not merely from punishment that 
might be indicted on account of sin, but from sin itself. 
If we confess our sins Jesus is faithful to forgive us our 
sins. (John 1:9.) The word here translated forgive 
means to put away, remove.* The meaning is, he will 
put away our unrighteousness. The New Testament 
writers used two words which are sometimes rendered 
forgive in our English Bibles, although neither is its 
equivalent. As already said, one of these words means 
to put away and the other to use grace.! We will con- 
sider the latter first. “For what is there wherein ye 
were made inferior to the rest of the churches, except 
it be that I myself was not a burden to you? Forgive 
me this injustice.” (2 Cor. 12:13.) His not receiving sup- 
port from them was in a sense an injustice to them, but 
for good and sufficient reasons he felt that he was doing 
right in refusing the support. He has not changed his 
mind and he will not change his conduct in this respect. 
He begs them to use grace or indulgence towards him. 
Since they had some cause to feel aggrieved the word for- 
give may here be used, yet it is somewhat misleading, 
inasmuch as it creates the impression that Paul was con- 
fessing a fault. In all other cases “forgive” is too mea- 
gre. At first sight it would seem to be proper in Col. 
3:13, but a better translation would be: forbearing one 
another and kind to each other, if any have a complaint 
against any as the Lord was kind to you so also do ye. 
To be kind, gracious, is more than to forgive. I think it 
should be similarly translated in Epli. 4 :32. The trans- 
lation in 2 Cor. 2:6-8 seems to be specially improper 






86 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


since we would not speak of forgiving one who had al- 
ready been sufficiently punished. To such a one we 
might and should be kind. 

Let us try to give a concise statement of God’s dealing 
with sinful man that will satisfy the teaching of the 
Bible in general. 

When man sinned, God did not cast him off, but his 
grace abounded towards him. God was and is patient, 
did and is doing all he can to induce man to turn from 
his evil ways, and when man makes the effort, God helps 
him all he can to a better life, and when any one has 
put off the old man with his deeds, and has “put on the 
new man, which is after God, created in righteousness 
and holiness of truth,” he remembers no longer the sins 
of the old man against the new man. In all this God’s 
grace is manifest. His grace abounds to us first in his 
long-suffering and kindness, and then in his patient and 
earnest call to repentance, and then in his help in our 
conflict with sin, and finally in not remembering the 
sins of the old man against us after we have put on the 
new man. By Grace we are saved. All these manifes- 
tations of God’s grace taken together constitute the for- 
giveness of sin, or better, the putting away of sin. 

It may be thought that this view of the forgiveness of 
sin cannot be correct, since Jesus taught his disciples 
to pray, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” 
How can a man put away the sins of another? But what 
constitutes forgiveness between man and man? This 
has been a difficult question. The necessity of forgiving 
those who have wronged us has generally been taught 
in the church, but what the specific act of forgiving is, 
has not always been clear. Under the impression that 
to forgive means to overlook, much effort has been made 
on the part of persons who felt that they had been in- 


FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 


87 


jured, to entertain for those that had injured them the 
same feeling they had towards them before the injury. 
Such effort must be futile, if not absolutely wrong. If 
A wrongs B, B’s relation to A is necessarily changed. B 
did not know, did not think that A would do such a 
thing. He now knows A better than before. It is im- 
possible to continue the same relation. Outwardly B 
may act toward A as before, but at heart the former re- 
lation has been interrupted. What can B do? He can 
earnestly desire his former friend to be a good man; he 
can pray for him, and strive in every possible way to 
bring him to repentance. This is what true love would 
prompt him to do. If he cares nothing for A, he may 
easily overlook the wrong. That is an act of indiffer- 
ence. The promise is : “If ye will forgive men their tres- 
passes, your heavenly Father will forgive you your tres- 
passes.” Let us read it this way: If ye overlook, dis- 
regard the trespasses of other men, and leave them in 
their errors, God wil overlook, disregard your wrongs, 
and leave you in your errors. Would that satisfy the 
soul? Who would desire to be left eternally in sin? 
Let us rather read it this way: If you are deeply con- 
cerned about the wrongs of others, and have an earnest 
and sympathetic desire to help them out of the wrong 
into the right, God will be concerned about your sins, 
and will lovingly help you out of your wrongs into the 
right. The promise that God will forgive if we forgive 
does not mean that God will do us a kind act, because 
we have done a kind act. God cannot put away sin as 
long as we love sin or are even indifferent to it. We 
must love righteousness and desire to be free from sin. 
But to be free from sin we must love our neighbors as 
ourselves. Therefore God cannot put away our sins, 
unless we earnestly desire to help others to put away 


88 W1HAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

their sins. This is what is meant by forgiving one an- 
other. 

As said, one of the Greek words translated for- 
give in the Bible means to put away, and it should have 
been so translated. But it is possible and even probable 
that any word or expression that might have been chosen 
would have acquired in use the meaning that the word 
forgive usually has. We like to think of forgiveness as a 
forensic act. We like to think of God’s saying to a sin- 
ner, Thy sins are forgiven; that is, thy sins shall not be 
reckoned against thee. It is certainly a blessed thing, 
when God can say thy sins are forgiven, or thy sins are 
not reckoned. “Blessed are they whose iniquities are 
forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man 
to whom the Lord will not reckon sin.” (Ps. 31 :1.) (Rom. 
4:7.) But to whom will the Lord not reckon sin? Can 
He say this arbitrarily to any one? To the man who 
has turned away from sin, put away his sin, and has at 
least in some respect become a new man, God will say, 
Thy sin that is put away shall not be reckoned against 
thee. “The soul that sinneth it shall die; the son shall 
not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the 
father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of 
the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of 
the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked turn 
away from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep 
all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, 
he shall surely live, he shall not die, none of his trans- 
gressions that he hath committed shall be remembered 
against him. In the righteousness which he hath done 
he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the 
wicked? saith the Lord God, and not rather that he 
should return from his wTiy and live?” (Ezek. 18:20-24.) 
As a false and superficial conception of sin has prevailed, 


FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 


89 


so a false and superficial view of the forgiveness of sin 
has been held. Sin as a state is lack of love, and this 
cannot be overlooked or forgotten. It must be made 
good. The love of God is poured out in our hearts by 
the Holy Spirit which he has given us. (Rom. 5:5.) Be- 
cause the Holy Spirit has poured out the love of God in 
our hearts, we have hope that is not put to shame. Any 
hope based on anything else than the consciousness of 
love to God is vain. Sin as a force is Satan and his host. 
Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil. “For he 
must reign till he put all enemies under his feet.” His 
enemies are our enemies, and the conflict is going on 
within us. We must be conscious participants in this 
war. Indeed it often seems to us that we must bear the 
brunt of the battle. Yet it is Jesus who encourages and 
strengthens and finally brings us off more than conquer- 
ors over sin and death. The help that Jesus gives us in 
the conflict is called in the New Testament the putting 
away of sin, but erroneously understood to be the for- 
giveness, that is, the overlooking of sin. 

To most persons Luke 17 :3 will seem to be an excep- 
tion at least to the above statement. “Take heed to 
yourselves: If thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he 
repent, forgive him.” Here the word forgive in the sense 
overlook, excuse, seems to be right. The steps are named. 
Your brother sins, you rebuke him, that is, you try to 
show him his wrong and to bring him to repentance or 
change of mind; he changes his mind and you forgive, 
that is, overlook the sin. Is that all that is necessary in 
such a case? Jesus really says put away from him, and 
not forgive. Put away what? Let us see. The brother 
has yielded to some passion or appetite, probably to the 
love of self. You bring him to see his wrong and finally 
to regret it. Will it not require an effort, perhaps a long 


90 


WiHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


and earnest conflict on the part of the erring brother to 
overcome the passion or weakness that caused him to 
fall? What is your duty towards your brother, to look 
on idly while he is struggling, or to help him? We must 
see that after a man has changed his mind and regrets 
his error there is still something to be put away, namely 
that which caused him to fall. Neither in this case nor 
in any other is mere overlooking or excusing sufficient. 

When people think soberly they know that God will 
not forgive a sin that is persisted in. They know that a 
thief need not pray for forgiveness unless he will quit 
stealing; the liar need not pray for forgiveness, if he 
will not quit lying, and so with all other sins. Yet 
alongside of this reasonable and Scriptural view runs 
the quite contrary belief that God will overlook, excuse 
sins that have not been broken off by righteousness nor 
in any sense forsaken. Many even think this a very 
precious doctrine. 

The putting away of sin is not a momentary act, but 
a process. This is indicated by the use of the present 
tense of the verb.* The sentence, Thy sins are forgiven, 
seems to point to a past act, but the tense is really pres- 
ent, and the meaning is, thy sins are being put ^way. 
This is in harmony with experience. It is well known 
that we overcome sin gradually, often very slowly in- 
deed. So far as we know, no man has been cleansed of 
his sins in a moment. The conflict is long and hard, so 
hard indeed that a complete triumph over all evil desires 


*d(t)etijprai found in Luke 5:17-26 is 'said to be perfect, and as regards 
the form this is probably correct, but the following- facts indicate 
that in meaning it is present. The parallel passages, Matth. 9:2-8, 
Mark 2:3-12, have acbLevrai ; Luke 7:47 seems to use afteuvrai as plural 
of d4>UvTau. It would hardly be possible to translate John 20:23, “whose 
soever sins ye forgive, they have been forgiven unto them.” Here a 
present or future meaning is necessary. The Latins, who knew Greek 
colloquially, translated a0eWrcu with remittuntur. 


FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 


91 


seems to many quite impossible. They say perfection 
can not be attained in this life, and consequently they 
make little effort to reach that goal. They hope, of 
course, to be perfectly happy in the next world, not so 
much through any change in themselves as through the 
changed surroundings and conditions. This is very much 
as a child might say : I cannot be good so long as I am 
in the nursery, but when I get big and can go into the 
parlor, I shall be perfectly good. Neither the parlor nor 
release from restraint ever made a bad child good. God 
cannot create a place that will of itself free a soul from 
sin, or make a sinful soul happy. The only road* to hap- 
piness is through the putting away of sin. The soul 
must be changed, brought into harmony with God before 
it can be happy anywhere. But the task of removing 
sin seems too great. We fully realize that we cannot 
free ourselves from sin, and having reached this con- 
clusion, instead of saying, -‘I can do all things in and 
through him who strengthens me/’ we accept the illogi- 
cal conclusion, that we cannot free ourselves even with 
the help of Jesus. This lack of courage in the great bat- 
tle, which comes from lack of faith in Jesus, is a great 
hindrance to Jesus in the work he came to do. We in- 
deed praise Jesus as Savior, not, however, as Savior from 
sin, but as Savior from the punishment which we fear 
God might inflict upon us on account of sin. His labors 
are thought of as being directed towards God rather than 
toward man. He is not thought of as a Helper of man, 
but as a Mediator, a sacrifice, a propitiation, an advo- 
cate. The false notions that have crept into the church 
and into the minds of Christians under these terms must 
be removed before a correct conception of the work of 
Jesus can obtain. 


82 WfHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

Jesus As the Mediator. 

Jesus is Mediator between God and man. (1 Tim. 2:5.) 
He is mediator, not because of some specific work, but 
because of all and through all that he has done and is 
doing to bring man to God. It ought not to be necessary 
to say, that the fact that Jesus is mediator does not give 
us the right to attribute to him anything and everything 
that seems to us to belong to the work of a mediator. 
There have been many mediators in the world, and they 
have done innumerable things to accomplish the desired 
end. In every case the conduct of the mediator was 
determined by his own character and by the characters 
and situations of the parties between whom he mediated. 
The work of Jesus is determined by his own character, 
by the character of God, and by the character and condi- 
tion of man. Therefore we must not attribute to him, as 
mediator, anything not clearly attributed to him in the 
Scriptures. In our English Bibles he is said to make 
intercession, and this is frequently thought to be the 
specific work of the mediator. For practical reasons we 
will consider the making of intercession after and in 
connection with the advocacy of Jesus. 

Jesus As Advocate. 

The word advocate, applied to Jesus, occurs but once 
in our Bible. This must seem strange when we think of 
the great importance that is given to this office of Jesus 
in nearly all systems of Christology. The passage that 
contains the word reads as follows “My little children, 
these things I write unto you that ye may not sin. And 
if any man sin we have an advocate with the father, 
Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation 
for our sins, and not for our sins only but for the sins 
of the whole world.” (John 2:1-2.) At the word advocate 


JESUS AS ADVOCATE. 


93 


there arises in our minds the image of a court with all 
its practices as we know them in this world. God is the 
judge, man the criminal and Jesus the advocate. One 
thing unusual in this case is that the judge is also the 
plaintiff. But this we readily pass by. Our mind is 
fixed only on the advocate. The passage says nothing 
of what the advocate does. The practices of the courts 
must supply this. It is assumed that this advocate does 
what other advocates do. What is expected of an advo- 
cate in such a case? By every means to free the criminal 
of course. He is to try to make the judge believe that 
the prisoner ought not to be punished. If he cannot do 
this by showing that the prisoner is innocent, wrongful- 
ly accused, he will try to obtain mercy for him. All this 
is not only quite thinkable, but is a matter of every day 
experience among men. In a human court the judge is 
not supposed to know at the outset whether the accused 
is guilty or not. He has not yet heard the evidence. But 
even when he has heard the evidence, which perhaps is 
incomplete, or even very conflicting, he may still not 
know certainly. There is still a possibility of his being 
mistaken. Here is room for an advocate. His services 
may be quite necessary to secure justice. Can this whole 
conception be transferred to the court of heaven? Does 
God not know whether man is guilty or not? Can any 
one imagine that Jesus is seeking to clear a man whom 
God wants to condemn? What may be honest, genuine 
human action w r ould be a farce if engaged in by God and 
Jesus. They know who is guilty and who is innocent 
and they are one in thought, will and purpose. If any 
one will try to carry out to a reasonable limit the thought 
that Jesus is an advocate, pleading our cause with his 
Father, he will see the absurdity of the conception. If 
the judgment of God concerning anyone is wrong, then 


94 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


he is in error. If his judgement is right and Jesus seeks 
to change that judgment, Jesus is in error, and if he 
succeeds in gaining his Father over to his view, they 
w r ill both be in error. There can be but one absolutely 
correct judgment concerning a man or a thing. If God 
has in mind that perfect estimate or judgment and he 
relinquishes it for another judgment, he necessarily 
changes from the right to the wrong. If we believe that 
“the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous alto- 
gether,” we should also believe that no advocate in the 
universe could induce him to accept other judgments. 
If we believe that Jesus is “the way, the truth and the 
life,” we ought not to think that he is trying to change 
the true and righteous judgment of God. If we believe 
that Jesus and the Father are one we ought not to think 
that they differ in their judgment with regard to man. 
But after we have said all this, still the words of John 
remain: “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the 
Father.” The word here translated advocate is else- 
where translated comforter. When Jesus was talking 
with the disciples just before his betrayal, he promised 
to send some one to them. As they were very sad, it 
seemed to our translators, that this person must be a 
comforter. But the man who has sinned does not need 
comfort so much as something else, and why Jesus should 
comfort God because men sin is 'not quite clear. Here 
the activity of a comforter was not needed with God or 
men, but perhaps that of an advocate. He might plead 
the cause of the sinner, and so the word “advocate” was 
chosen. We have seen, however, that the activity of the 
advocate is as little needed here as that of the com- 
forter. The word means one called to the side of. One 
may be called to the side of another to render assistance 
of various kinds, so that some word of very general ap- 


MAKING INTERCESSION. 


95 


plication must be used. The word helper is perhaps the 
best. If we read, if any man sin we have a helper with 
the Father, it will not be necessary to think that he is 
to help us do something with God. We need a mighty 
helper not against God, or to controvert his judgments, 
but against sin. The most serious error of theology is 
the doctrine that Jesus did something and is now doing 
something to change the attitude of God towards man. 
God does not, cannot change. Man must change, for he 
is wrong. The constant teaching of the Scriptures is 
that man must change, must turn, must become a new 
creature. A man who can for a moment think that God 
can become reconciled to sinful man, does not compre- 
hend the gravity of sin. It seems that Satan himself 
must have whispered to man “Sin is all right, if God will 
only overlook it, and he can be brought to overlook it 
through the intercession of Jesus.’’ The Bible, on the 
other hand, constantly teaches that man must forsake 
his sins and become righteous. But if a man sin he is 
not to despair, for he has a Helper at the seat of power, 
who is faithful and able to cleanse him from all un- 
righteousness. We need such a Helper against our great 
foe — sin. 

Making Intercession. 

The word translated by “to make intercession” has 
various meanings as may be seen by the few occurrences 
in the New Testament. “Ye see this man about whom 
all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me.” (Acts 
25:24.) Instead of “have dealt” we find “made suit” in 
the revised version, and these are translations of the 
word in question. 

Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh 
intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy 
prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they 
seek my life. — (Rom. 11:2.) 


96 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


There is no intercession or pleading in this passage. 
Elijah gives his reason for being there by stating the 
facts as he understood them. He makes no request of 
God. He is simply talking with God. If God had spoken 
of destroying Israel, I think Elijah would certainly have 
made intercession with God for Israel. Clearly the word 
in question does not mean to plead or intercede in this 
passage. 

The word occurs also in Romans 8:34. 

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, 
that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also 
maketh intercession for. us. 

But the 32d verse tells us that God spared not his own 
Son, and then asks: “how shall he not with him freely 
give us all things? If God has delivered up his own Son, 
and is willing freely to give with him all things, where is 
the necessity for any intercession? I do not know where 
one could find two passages so close together and so in* 
congruous as are the 32d and 34th verses of the 8th chap- 
ter of Romans. Surely the translators have done Paul 
great injustice in making him say in this connection that 
Jesus “maketh intercession for us.” What should the 
translation be? We cannot understand, much less de- 
fine the work of Jesus at the right hand of God. As well 
try to explain to the babe in the cradle what its father is 
doing, when he is thinking, planning and laboring for 
its future as try to explain to us what Jesus is doing for 
us. It is enough for us to know that he is active in our 
behalf, and this is what the word in question tells us 
when we take it in its widest sense, which we must do, 
since we cannot limit it to any specific act. 

Jesus should not be called an advocate, since his work 
is in no respect like that of an earthly advocate. We 
should not say that he maketh intercession, for there 


PROPITIATION. 


97 


is no room or occasion for such work. Our Father is as 
kind and gracious to us as Jesus is, and Jesus taught 
us to think of him thus. To say that Jesus makes inter- 
cession with the Father for us derogates from God’s love, 
which is sinful. 

Propitiation. 

Propitiation is “the act of appeasing the wrath and 
conciliating the favor of an offended person.” Webster 
adds that in theology it means “specifically the influence 
or the effect of the death of Christ in appeasing the di- 
vine justice and conciliating the divine favor.” An an- 
gry man may be appeased by deeds that are pleasing to 
him. By deeds of kindness and gifts an enemy may be 
changed into a friend. This is w r ell known. As the 
pagans thought that their gods w T ere possessed of all the 
desires and passions common to men, they thought' that 
the gods also might be appeased. Many heathen thought 
that the gods loved even empty honors and that they 
could be bribed. Perhaps no Christian ever seriously 
thought that God could be bribed, but that his justice 
may be appeased and his favor conciliated has been very 
generally held. Not only was it thought possible, but 
absolutely necessary that Jesus should propitiate God. 
This view has even made its impression upon our Eng- 
lish Bible. Whence this doctrine of propitiation? Was 
it taught by Jesus or his Apostles? Or did the pagans, 
who embraced Christianity, bring it with them? Not 
one sentence of the teaching of Jesus indicates either 
the possibility or the necessity of propitiating his Fath- 
er. Indeed in the whole New Testament there is nothing 
said about propitiating God. The Greek verb meaning to 
propitiate occurs only twice in the New Testament. 
“God be merciful to me a sinner.” (Luke 18:13.) Here it 
is translated be merciful. In praying thus one might 


9S 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


have the thought that God might be strictly just and not 
merciful if he were not implored, but through prayer 
he might be induced to turn aside from strict justice 
and be merciful. (See Chapter on Forgiveness, page 83.) 
That would be a very near approach to the pagan con- 
ception of propitiation. But the publican’s prayer may 
be the expression of contrition without any thought of 
changing God, and so it should be taken. 

The other passage is Heb. 2:17. 

Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his 
brethren; that he might be made a merciful and faithful High Priest 
in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the 
people. 

Instead of to make propitiation for the sins, etc., it 
should read to propitiate the sins of the people. Our 
English translation means, and was no doubt intended 
to mean, that he might be a merciful and faithful High 
Priest to propitiate God for the sins of the people. This 
is the pagan idea exactly. If the writer means that Jesus 
was to propitiate God, why did he not say so ? He would 
have expressed a thought with which men were and are 
quite familiar. But he said that Jesus was to propitiate 
sin, not God. But what can that mean? No pagan ever 
spoke of propitiating sin. Here we note a difference be- 
tween the pagan conception and that of the writer of 
the letter to the Hebrews. Before inquiring what the 
word propitiate may mean, let us see how John uses the 
word propitiation: 

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
sent his Son to be propitiation for our sins. 

Let us put into this sentence the definition of pro- 
pitiation instead of the word. Herein is love, not that 
we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to 
appease God’s justice and conciliate God’s favor. This 
makes the passage absurd. It was God’s love, God’s fa- 


PROPITIATION. 


99 


vor that sent Jesus into the world. How then could 
Jesus propitiate God, or appease his justice? Why 
should God’s justice need appeasing? Is it not right as 
it is? And after it is appeased, is it still justice or 
something else? It is clear from the above passage that 
John did not use propitiation in the pagan sense. He 
must have regarded sin as the object of the action im- 
plied in the word propitiation just as the writer of the 
letter to the Hebrews expressed himself. What was their 
conception of the action to propitiate? 

Whatever the root word may have been from which we 
have the small group of words translated in the New Tes- 
tament with the words cheerful, cheerfulness, merciful, 
be merciful, propitiate, propitiation, it probably meant 
to shine or be bright. The countenance of an angry man 
is thought to be dark, while that of the joyful man is 
thought to be bright, beaming. When the angry man is 
appeased, when his angry thoughts are replaced by good- 
will and kindness, his countenance is changed from 
darkness to brightness. If the thought underlying pro- 
pitiate is to brighten, to propitiate sin would be to 
brighten sin. This would be similar to the expression 
in Isaiah 1 :18 : 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though 
your sins be as 'scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though 
they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 

Of course sins cannot be made w T hite. The meaning 
must be, though your life, your character be red with sin, 
I will whiten it like snow. When the character is made 
white, the sins will all be gone. To whiten sin then 
means to remove sin and to brighten sin would be the 
same. 

It is, however, probable that propitiate was used be- 
cause it indicated the bringing about of the proper rela- 
tion between God and man. In order to establish this re- 


100 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


lation sin must be removed, and therefore sin is put as 
object of the action. 

The certain things in this case are that Jesus is the 
subject and sin the object of the action “propitiate.” 
Jesus being the subject and sin the object there is little 
room for doubting with regard to the act. Jesus came to 
destroy the works of the devil, to take away sin. When 
Jesus has freed mankind from sin, he will not have ap- 
peased God, for God has not been angry, but he will have 
pleased him infinitely. We may say that God’s counte- 
nance will then beam with joy. In that sense we may 
say that God will be propitiated. Christians ought to 
use the word propitiation, as John did, and not follow 
heathen usage. 

Jesus As Sacrifice. 

Jesus is once called a sacrifice. “Be ye therefore imita- 
tors of God, as beloved children: and walk in love, as 
Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an 
offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweet 
smell.” (Ech. 5:1-2.) Beck thinks that the construction 
is: “sacrifice for an odor of sweet smell to God,” the 
meaning being that the sacrifice which Jesus made was 
very pleasing to God. There is nothing in the passage 
to indicate that Paul had the death of Jesus specifically 
in mind. It is indeed more probable that he had the 
whole life of Jesus in mind, from the fact that he used 
very nearly the same language with regard to the action 
of the Philippians in sending him assistance by the hand 
of Epaphroditus. “I am filled, having received from 
Epaphroditus the things that came from you, an odor of 
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.” 
Paul regarded all good deeds as a sacrifice well pleasing 
to God, as we see in this case, and also by the fact that 
he exhorts the Romans to present their bodies a living 


JESUS AS SACRIFICE. 


101 


sacrifice holy, acceptable to God, (Rom. 12) which can 
only mean that they should lead pure and useful lives. 
In connection with this can be taken the 8th verse of 
the 3d chapter of the letter to Titus, “Faithful is the 
saying, and concerning these things I will that thou af- 
firm confidently, to the end that they who have believed 
may be careful to maintain good works. These things 
are beautiful to God and profitable to men.”* A glance 
at the original will show that this is the correct division 
of the words. Good works are beautiful, are an odor of 
sweet smell to God. The life of Jesus was full of good 
deeds, each of which was in this sense a sacrifice. “Hath 
the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacri- 
fices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to 
obey is better than sacrifices and to hearken better than 
the fat of rams.” (1 Sam. 15:22.) That Jesus was not 
a sacrifice in the sense that an animal was when slain, 
and that God did not desire his death or his blood is 
plainly declared. (See chapter on sacrifices.) 

When we consider that God loved the world and sent 
his Son to save it, we know that he did not need to be 
appeased; when we consider his glorious attributes as 
set forth in the Bible, we know that neither the sight nor 
the smell of blood could be soothing or pleasing to him. 
When we read the plain declarations that his desire is 
that men do his will and not bring animal sacrifices, 
we must conclude that the animal blood of Jesus, whether 
we think of the few drops that may have fallen from 
his pierced hands and feet, or of the blood and water 
that flowed from his side, could not have been a sac- 
rifice well pleasing to God. 


* tkttos 6 \6yos Kal irepl tovtwv fioiXofiai oe Sia^e^aiovcrOai, tv<% 
tppovTifaai KaXaj v Zpyuu irpolffTctaOcu oi Treir larevKOTes' 0e<5 Tavrd 

€<xtip Ka\a Kal <b<p€\ifia rois aiOpu-rrois. 


102 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 

Before considering the blood of Jesus it will be well 
to examine the Scriptures with regard to the relation of 
the Holy Spirit to Jesus. “And they went through the 
region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of 
the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and when 
they came over against Mysia, they assayed to go into 
Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.” 
(Acts 16:6-7.) Here Holy Spirit and Spirit of Jesus 
are two names for the same person. “But ye are not in 
the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God 
dwell in you. But if any man have not the Spirit of 
Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the 
body is dead because of sin; the spirit is life because of 
righteousness.” (Rom. 8:9-10.) The spirit that dwells 
in the Christian is the Holy Spirit, yet he is here called 
the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ, and Christ 
himself. “But’ unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, 
a veil lieth upon their heart. But whensoever it shall 
turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord 
is the Spirit : and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is 
liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:15-17.) When the Jews turn to the 
Lord Jesus, they will receive the Spirit, who is the Lord 
and who will make them free from the bondage of the law. 
Here the identity of the Spirit and the Lord Jesus is af- 
firmed in the plainest words. “And because ye are sons, 
God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, cry- 
ing Abba Father. So that thou art no longer a bond- 
servant, but a son, and if a son then an heir through 
God.” (Gal. 4:6.) The Holy Spirit is promised to be- 
lievers, but here the spirit that God sends into the 
hearts of believers is called the Spirit of Jesus, God’s 
Son. “For I know that this shall turn to my salvation, 


JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


103 


through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit 
of Jesus Christ.” (Phil. 1:19.) Peter calls the spirit that 
spoke to and through the prophets of old the Spirit of 
Christ, “Searching what time or manner of time the 
Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when 
it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the 
glories that should follow them.” (1 Peter 1 :11.) What 
Jesus says in the 14th chapter of John seems to be at 
variance with the above passages as we have presented 
them. He says, “I will pray the Father and he will give 
you another Helper that he may be with you forever, 
even the Spirit of truth.” This he said after telling them 
that he would go away. Now if he went away and caused 
a different person to be sent in his place, the conclusion, 
which we were about to draw from the other passages 
cited, viz., that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus, 
must be incorrect. But in what sense will this promised 
Helper be a different person? Certainly not in character 
and quality. Jesus manifested himself as a man. He 
helped by outer words and acts as one man may help an- 
other. His power to aid was greater than that of any 
man, yet it was limited to human forms. The other Help- 
er is the Holy Spirit, which does not address man merely 
through the eye and ear, but he is a power in the heart 
of believers. He is a helper of a different form and man- 
ner, comes closer to the heart than could the man of 
Galilee, yet the same in essence. Immediately following 
the above quoted passage, Jesus says: “Ye know him 
for he abideth with you, and shall be in you. I will not 
leave you desolate. I will come to you. Yet a little while 
the world beholdeth me no more: but ye behold me: 
because I live ye shall live also. In that day ye shall 
know that I am in the Father and ye in me and I in you.” 
If we may take it that Jesus went away as a man, but 


104 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


returned in another form, returned as spirit, there is 
no disagreement between the passages nor conflict with 
reason. The only other possibility of harmonizing them 
is to assume that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus 
are both present in the hearts of men, and that sometimes 
the one acts and sometimes the other. The view that 
the Holy Spirit is so entirely subservient to Jesus, that 
he is called the Spirit of Jesus, that is, the Spirit that 
belongs to him in the sense that he does his bidding, need 
not be considered. That John as well as Paul and Peter 
regarded the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Jesus is clearly 
shown by the 39th verse of the 7th chapter of his Gospel. 
“But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believed 
on him were to receive, for the Spirit was not yet: be- 
cause Jesus was not yet glorified.” Our translators sup- 
posed John to say that the Spirit was not yet given, and 
so they inserted the word given. There is nothing in the 
context that suggests that a word is to be supplied. The 
translators, no doubt, thought that the spirit, which was 
to be given to believers did then exist, and therefore John 
could not say that the spirit was not yet, that is, did not 
exist. But if John meant to say that the spirit was not 
yet given, why did he not say so ? It is in the highest de- 
gree improbable that John thought that a new spirit 
would come into existence when Jesus should be glorified. 
Not an absolutely new spirit, but still a spirit that had 
not yet been. Let us see if we can understand this. Jesus 
was with the Father in the beginning, and all things 
were made through him, yet he was not with the Father 
in the beginning as the babe in the manger, nor as the 
man of Galilee. When Jesus was born, he was a being 
which as such had not existed before. When on the 
cross, when in the tomb, when risen and glorified, — at 
each step he was a being that had not been before. 


JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


105 


According to the teaching of the letter to the Hebrews 
the experiences of his life, of the earthly life of Jesus, 
were necessary to prepare him for his work of saving men. 
“Though he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the 
things which he suffered : and having been made perfect 
he became unto all them that obey him the author of 
eternal salvation.” (Heb. 5:7-10.) It is here not a ques- 
tion of moral perfection, for the Word that was with 
God and was God was surely morally perfect, before com- 
ing to earth. It must be his preparation for his work, 
his official perfection as is everywhere said. We may 
not be able to understand why these preparations were 
necessary to Jesus, why he needed any preparation for 
his work, yet we have these plain statements, that the 
Spirit which the believers were to receive was not until 
Jesus was glorified, and that it behooved him to be made 
perfect through suffering in order to be the author of 
salvation. These passages leave no doubt that the Holy 
Spirit, the Spirit that helps men out of sin into a holy 
life, is the Spirit of Jesus. Jesus is the Savior of men. 

The identification of the Holy Spirit with Jesus may 
seem at’ first sight to be contrary to the doctrine of the 
Trinity, but it is not necessarily so. Jesus of Nazareth 
was not a different being, but still a different character 
from the Word. So the glorified Christ seated at the 
right hand of God is a different character from Jesus of 
Nazareth. Therefore one may properly speak of Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit. But it is true that the. ordinary 
trinitarian doctrine of three persons now existing in 
the Godhead side by side would be disturbed. But why 
insist on this view? With most persons the chief thing 
in the doctrine of the Trinity is the divinity of Jesus 
and the personality of the Holy Spirt. The view I am 
presenting does not call into question either the divinity 


106 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


of Jesus or the personality of the Holy Spirit, but on 
the contrary heartily accepts both. If reason is worth 
anything in such a question, it would certainly seem 
more probable that Jesus would continue and complete 
his work than that another spirit should step in and do 
the greater part of the saving of men. The mere fact 
that the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together 
proves them to be separate and separable beings as little 
as the mention of soul and spirit proves them to be 
separate entities. The doctrine of the Trinity rests on 
two passages, both of which present grave difficulties. 
The first, Matt. 28:19, will be considered in the chapter 
on baptism. The second, 2 Cor. 13:13, should not be 
urged in substantiation of any doctrine until an intelli- 
gent meaning is found for the passage. Shall we trans- 
late communion, fellowship, or companionship of the 
Holy Spirit? That Paul should have departed from his 
usual manner of closing his letters and in this added a 
phrase the meaning of which has so far not been satis- 
factorily discovered, is very strange. It is more probable 
that these words were added by a later hand. 

Blood of Jesus. 

The word blood brings to the mind of the English read- 
er the red fluid that flows in animal veins. Accordingly 
when such an one reads of the blood of Jesus, he thinks 
of the red fluid that flowed in the veins of the man of 
Galilee. In the Bible the blood of Jesus is said to cleanse, 
sanctify, justify, purchase. These all have been grouped 
into one conception. Jesus has been thought of as a 
Jewish sacrifice, and his blood was thought to appease 
God, and thus free man from his wrath. This view was 
very widespread, and may be regarded as the strictly 
orthodox teaching today, notwithstanding it involves the 
greatest difficulties. The thought that God could be 


BLOOD OF JESUS. 


107 


appeased by the sight and smell of the blood of his mur- 
dered Son is shocking. One would think that the Chris- 
tian sensibility would declare it blasphemy at once. There 
is no Scripture for, but very strong passages against the 
thought that Jesus appeased or changed God in any way. 
These difficulties have been seen and many attempts have 
been made to think of the whole matter otherwise. The 
blood of Jesus, say some, speaks of his death, and he 
came to his death through his struggle for the right, for 
the good of humanity. He therefore died for us and 
thereby exhibited his devotion to the truth, and his love 
for us. This exhibition inspires love for him in us, and 
we are thereby cleansed, justified, sanctified, redeemed. 
In all this there is certainly truth, but it satisfies neither 
the demands of the human heart nor the teaching of the 
Scriptures. Jesus may be the best and purest man who 
died on account of his devotion to the truth, and for the 
good of his fellow men, but he is certainly not the only 
one who did this. The fact that he was divine cannot in- 
crease the power of his example. The examples of all 
such men are helpful, but we recognize clearly that they 
cannot save us. If Jesus has no power to save beyond 
that of his example, a fiction would have done as well as 
a real life. We need a Savior who can do more for us 
than we can do for ourselves, more than any man can do 
for us. The Scriptures represent Jesus as such a Savior. 

Many men of our time affect vagueness and indefinite- 
ness in their theological thinking. So far as this comes 
from humility, from the consciousness that here we 
can only know in part, it cannot be censured even if it 
cannot be praised. But this vagueness has sometimes, 
perhaps often, another source. One has reached the con- 
clusion that the Bible is a human composition, with very 
little, if any, divine inspiration in it, yet out of considera- 


108 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


tion for others, or by force of habit, or through some 
other not well defined impulse, one frequently still speaks 
of it as the Word of God. One is convinced that Jesus is 
human, that he did not rise out of the tomb, yet one 
speaks of him often as divine, and a now living Savior. 
It is said that the friends of Strauss arranged a meeting 
with exercises proper for enlightened persons such as 
they were, which should take the place of what we call 
divine service or worship. Strauss said afterward that 
he did not feel satisfied. He longed for some mention 
of the old story. He had proved to his full satisfaction 
that the old story was not true, yet his heart longed for 
it in a would-be religious meeting. This is very natural. 
Habit, early association had much to do with it, but there 
was more. A man cannot with much edification worship 
his own reason, nor that of his neighbor. Neither can 
one worship a god from whom one has received no benefit. 
If in the above mentioned meeting Jesus had been spoken 
of as the Helper, the Savior of men, it would have been 
meant and would have been taken in an indefinite sense, 
yes in an unreal sense, or it would have been rejected. As 
with Strauss so perhaps it is with all who have heard 
and believed the story of Jesus in youth. At times they 
long for it, and many who have lost their faith even wish 
the story were true. All this may explain the well known 
fact that men continue to use concerning Jesus language 
that to them has lost its real meaning. We may change 
one word in Emerson’s line and say, “From Christ him- 
self he cannot free.” This vague or unreal use of lan- 
guage, however much it may be praised, is injurious to 
speaker and hearer, writer and reader, and it will soon 
show itself to be so by its effect upon the youth. In 
justification of indefiniteness in this matter, it is often 
said that the Apostles and their fellow workers preached 


BLOOD OF JESUS. 


109 


the facts of the life and death of Christ in forms or terms 
of the altar, and had no formula or theory of the atone- 
ment at all, and it is recommended that preachers do 
the same today. How can such a statement be proved or 
justified in any way? To assume that they had no theory 
of the atonement, is to say that they not only used words 
without attaching any particular meaning to them, but 
that they preached Jesus as the Savior of men without 
having any conception of how he has helped, is helping 
or will help men. If they had preached that Jesus had 
lived, suffered, died and rose again for the benefit of men, 
but had added that' they had no conception of how he 
benefited men in any one or all these acts and sufferings, 
their preaching would have seemed ridiculous to their 
contemporaries. It is not right to impute such an ab- 
surdity to them. Every man who preaches that Jesus 
saves has some conception of how he saves. That is a 
necessity. Nothing can justify vagueness of language on 
the part of any minister in so important a matter as the 
salvation of men. Man wants and needs to know to the 
full extent of his comprehension, not only that Jesus 
saves but how he saves. 

Those who do not regard the blood of Jesus as the red 
fluid that flows in the veins of the man of Galilee think 
it used in the N. T. in a vague sense. This ought' to seem 
very improbable both from what has been said above and 
especially from the fact that the predicates of the blood in 
the N. T. are very definite. It is said to cleanse, to justi- 
fy, to purchase. It will now be shown that it meant to 
the Apostoles, Spirit. Before examining the use of this 
word specifically, we will inquire whether the use of 
language in general by our Savior would justify such an 
interpretation of the word if the Apostles understood 
the word blood generally as we do. To the Samaritan 


110 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


woman at Jacob’s well Jesus said that he would have 
given her living water if she had asked him. He did not 
mean as the woman supposed, that he would have given 
her such water as she had been using to cook her meals 
and wash her vessels. Yet he said water. He meant a 
spiritual gift that would quicken the inner man some- 
what as cool water refreshes the thirsty outer man. The 
resemblance between the action of the material and 
that of the spiritual justifies the designation of the spirit- 
ual by the name of the material. On a certain occasion 
Jesus said to his disciples, Beware of the leaven of the 
Pharisees. They thought he meant to warn them against 
the yeast the Pharisees used in making bread. Again he 
said, “Let him that hath none, sell his cloak and buy a 
sword.” Why should not water mean water as the woman 
thought, and leaven mean leaven, and sword mean sword 
as the disciples thought, and blood mean blood as the 
theologians have so generally thought? Jesus did not 
chide the woman for not understanding, but he was not 
pleased with the dullness of his disciples. He had taught 
them plainly that food cannot defile man, and they might 
have learned by that time to seek a deeper meaning un- 
der the surface of his words. That is, they should have 
begun by this time to understand spiritually. But why 
call false teaching leaven? Why did he not say, take 
heed and beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees? The question answers itself. So soon as we 
pronounce the words we feel that the word doctrine is 
not so expressive in this connection as leaven. The word 
leaven indicates the action and its manner, the trans- 
forming power of false doctrine. Here all the parables 
of our Savior might be cited, for they are all made on the 
same principle, that of representing the moral, the spirit- 
ual, by material things, temporal states, conditions and 


BLOOD OF JESUS. 


Ill 


occurrences. All along the line of intellectual development 
we find examples. When a man arrived at a new concep- 
tion, he did not coin a new word to express it, hut took 
one from the physical realm for that purpose. The use 
of the word body is an example. When Paul says to the 
Corinthians, “Now ye are the body of Christ/’ he does 
not mean the body that was nailed to the cross. He meant 
a spiritual organization. The life giving principle of the 
organism is the Spirit of Jesus. Paul calls this organism 
the body of Christ. What could be more natural and rea- 
sonable than to name the life giving principle of this or- 
ganization the blood of Christ? Blood carries nourish- 
ment and strength to every member of the body and clean- 
ses every member. It may be said that the ancients did 
not know all this with regard to blood. It is true that 
they did not know all this, yet they knew very much of it. 
They knew of the importance of blood to the animal body 
and life. They knew indeed that it was absolutely indis- 
pensable to life. That later discoveries show a greater 
resemblance between the work of the blood in the animal 
body and that of the Spirit in the body of Christ is no 
argument against the designation of Spirit by the word 
blood. 

Thus far we have been showing that the Apostles could 
have designated the Spirit of Jesus by “blood of Jesus,” 
even if no one previous to their time had thought of 
blood as being the same as soul or spirit. But they were 
not the first in this matter. Deuteronomy 12:13 reads, 
“Only be sure that thou eat not the blood, for the blood 
is the soul; and thou shalt not eat the soul with the 
flesh.” In our Bibles in this and similar passages we 
read life instead of soul. The Hebrew word really means 
soul. Why then put life instead of soul? If life is here 
meant to designate a state or condition, how could one 


112 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


eat a state or condition? Did any human being under 
ordinary circumstances ever eat a part of an animal while 
it was still living? If by life is meant the potential 
principle that gives life to the organism, then it is simply 
the soul or spirit. By putting into the passages the 
word life, which is taken as a mere abstraction, we hide 
from ourselves the Hebrew thought. In Lev. 17 :14 we 
find the same thought expressed in inverted terms: “For 
the soul of all flesh is the blood.’ 7 This is somewhat va- 
ried in the 11th verse of the same chapter. “For the soul 
of the flesh is in the blood.” Whether the Seventy had 
the same text before them that we now have, we cannot 
know, but their translation is here as in the 14th verse: 
“For the soul of all flesh is its blood.” The Hebrew text 
affirms twice the identity of the soul and blood, and says 
once that the soul is in the blood. The Greek translation, 
the Septuagint, affirms three times the identity of soul 
and blood. The 11th verse of the 17th chapter demands 
farther attention: “For the soul of the flesh is in the 
blood, and I have given it to you upon your altars to 
make atonement for your souls, for through the soul the 
blood makes atonement.” The atoning power of the 
blood is in its soul power. We find then in the Hebrew 
Scriptures the two very closely related statements: that 
the blood is soul, and that the blood as soul, or by reason 
of the soul in it, makes atonement for our souls. We 
have also the clearest statement that the Jews in the N. 
T. times understood these passages to teach the identity 
of blood and soul. Josephus tells us (Antiq. 3:260) that 
Moses forbade the use of all blood thinking it to be soul 
and spirit. Philo, commenting on the words : The voice 
of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the ground.” 
Gen. 4:10 says that blood is the being or essence of the 
soul, and again that the spirit is the essence of the soul. 


BLOOD OF JESUS. 


113 


Now since the Hebrew Scriptures say twice that blood is 
soul, and once that the soul is in the blood, and the blood 
makes atonement by reason of the soul, and since the 
Septuagint which was commonly used by all Greek- 
speaking Christians, says in every case the blood is the 
soul, or the soul is blood, and since learned Jews in N. T. 
times regarded blood as soul or spirit, we must conclude 
that the N. T. writers held the same views. No pious 
Jew of that time questioned the teaching of Moses, that 
is, of the Pentateuch on any subject. It is evident that 
the Apostles could not have thought of the blood of Jesus 
as we think of the physical blood. To them it was soul 
and spirit, and therein lay its atoning power. If any one 
should think that the conception of soul or spirit as blood 
is too crude, he can get some help to an understanding 
of this by considering our use of the word brain. If we 
can make this word represent intellect, w r e need not think 
it strange that’ the Hebrews regarded blood as soul or 
spirit. 

We have seen that Jesus took names of physical things 
to express spiritual things; that no other word in the 
language expresses so well the cleansing and vivifying 
work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the believers, 
as the word blood; that the N. T. writers must have 
regarded blood as soul and spirit, since Moses so taught 
them. It remains now to examine the passages in which 
the word blood occurs to see whether it's use is in har- 
mony with the above conclusion. 

The power to cleanse from sin is ascribed to the blood 
of Jesus. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, 
and walk in the darkness, we lie and do not the truth: 
but if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have 
fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus, his 
Son, cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no 


114 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If 
we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to for- 
give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- 
ness.” (1 John 1:8-9). First we note that the blood of 
Jesus cleanses us from all sin, and Jesus himself cleanses 
us from all unrighteousness. That must be the same. 
The blood of Jesus is said to do just what Jesus does. 
Then we note that the verb cleanseth is in the present 
tense. It tells what the blood is now doing, continuously 
doing, not what it did at some past time of whatever 
duration. It cleanseth today and it cleansed yesterday 
and every other past day since John wrote, and it will 
cleanse tomorrow and every other future day so long 
as there are sinful men and women, who will comply 
with the condition, for there is a condition expressed. 
“If we walk in the light as he is in the light.” The mean- 
ing cannot be that we must walk in the same degree of 
light, for John will not allow us to say that we have no 
sin. God is light and in him is no darkness. He is the 
perfection of light and dwells in such light. But never- 
theless we are to walk in the light. 

When Jesus would return to his sick, or rather de- 
ceased friend, Lazarus, and his Disciples tried to dissuade 
him from his purpose, he said : “If a man walk in the day, 
he stumbleth not for he seeth the light of this world. 
But if a man walk in the night he stumbleth because the 
light is not' in him.” Evidently Jesus thought it his duty 
to go to his friend, and if he went where duty called, he 
would be walking in the light, and would therefore not 
stumble. But if he allowed this or that consideration to 
turn him from the path of duty he would be walking in 
a by-way, and not in the way on which the light of God 
was shining. He would consequently be in the dark and 
must stumble. To go forward and do one’s duty or what 


BLOOD OF JESUS. 


115 


seems to be duty, is to walk in the light. If we then go 
forward and do our duty as we understand it, the blood 
of Jesus will cleanse us from all sin. It is clear that 
John thinks that even when we try to do our duty we do 
not always succeed, for if we did our whole duty, we 
should have no sin. Sin is the failure to do our duty. It 
must be then that the blood of Jesus enables us to see our 
duty more clearly and to do it more fully until we come 
into the perfect light. The condition on which Jesus 
cleanses us from unrighteousness, is that we confess our 
sins. This must mean that we recognize our sins as such, 
see wherein we have done wrong. The wrong must be- 
come wrong in our eyes; that is, something to be re- 
jected. The confession of sins means then the turning 
away from the sinful things that we have done. But it 
does not say that if we confess our sins, Jesus will cleanse 
us from sin, but that he is faithful and righteous to 
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- 
ness. If he is faithful and righteous to forgive, and 
cleanse, he will do so if the condition named is com- 
plied with on our part. But why say that he is faithful 
and righteous to forgive and cleanse? It is encouraging 
to know that he is faithful, that is, that he will not neg- 
lect anything that belongs to his office or work. What 
can the word righteous add to the conception? If a man 
is faithful in the performance of his duty, he is righteous. 
The word translated righteous does not necessarily, nor 
even generally mean righteous, but right, proper, fit. (See 
Chapter on justification, page 123.) Now if we add fitness 
to faithfulness we have perfection of work. One might 
be faithful in one’s efforts yet incapable. But here it is 
said that he is faithful and fit or capable. In all this 
there is not the least suggestion that the blood of Jesus 
in any way enables or causes God to overlook sins. His 


116 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


blood is not said to have any effect on God but on us. It 
does not change God but us; it cleanses us. The condi- 
tions named are in harmony with this. They are just 
such as we know are necessary for any real reformation. 
The first is that we walk in the light, that is, do our duty 
according to our best light. The second is that we con- 
fess our sins and turn from them. If the efforts of Jesus 
are directed towards having God overlook our sins, it is 
not clear why personal reformation is required. For if a 
man should gradually turn away from all his sins, there 
would be no sins to overlook. If he should turn away 
from some part of them, we will say one-half, and God 
should then overlook the other half, it is not clear what 
the turning away from one-half has to do with the over- 
looking of the other half. If God can overlook one-half 
the sins he certainly can overlook all. If sin abound why 
might not grace abound much more? Again we read in 
Hebrews 13:12: “Wherefore Jesus also that he might 
sanctify the people through his blood, suffered without 
the gate.’' Compare this passage with Rom. 15 :16 : ‘But 
I write the more boldly unto you in some measure as put- 
ting you again in remembrance, because of the grace that 
was given me of God, that I should be a minister of 
Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles ministering the Gospel of 
God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be made ac- 
ceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” Notice 
that in this writing to the Hebrews blood is used, in that 
to the Romans spirit is used. The Gentiles as a whole are 
spoken of as an offering unto God. This offering is made 
acceptable to God by being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 
In the passage from Hebrews, Jesus is said to sanctify 
the people, which term includes the Gentiles, by his blood. 
The blood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are represented 
as doing the same thing. Unless we can see that the 


BLOOD OP JESUS. 


117 


blood and the spirit are two different factors, each having 
a distinct part in sanctification, we must conclude that 
they are one and the same. We are said to be saved by 
grace, by faith and by hope. Here each is a distinct fac- 
tor. The grace of God is first of all and without it there 
could be no salvation. But however great the grace of 
God might be, if man should remain without faith and 
hope there could be no salvation. There is the divine 
side and the human side to salvation, but in the above 
passage only the divine side is mentioned — the operation 
of the blood and of the Spirit. It has already been shown 
that the thought that the blood affects God in any way 
is both unscrip tural and unreasonable. The Scriptures 
represent the blood as acting directly upon man. “The 
blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 
1 :7.) “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes 
of an heifer, sprinkling them that have been defiled, 
sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more 
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit 
offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse our con- 
science from dead works to serve the living God.” (Heb. 
9 :14) . Here the action of the blood is set forth very fully. 
It cleanses us. It will cleanse our conscience from dead 
works and fit our conscience for the service of the living 
God. This is sanctification. But how can the physical 
blood cleanse the conscience? That the divine Spirit, 
the Holy Spirit can reach the spirit of man and make the 
conscience purer, more sensitive and active is conceivable. 
This is the purpose of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 

There is, however, one thing said about the blood that 
is not said of the Spirit. The blood is the price with 
which Jesus ransomed or purchased the church. “Take 
heed unto yourselves and unto all the flock, in which the 
Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church 


118 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

of God which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 
29:28). “Having foreordained unto adoption as sons 
through Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good 
pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, 
which he freely bestowed on us in the beloved: in whom 
we have our redemption through his blood, the forgive- 
ness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his 
grace.” (Eph. 1:5-7). “And if ye call on him as Father, 
who without respect of persons judge th according to 
each man’s work pass the time of your sojourn in fear: 
knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible 
things, with silver or gold, — from your vain manner of 
life handed down from your fathers; but with precious 
blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, 
even the blood of Christ, who was foreknown indeed be- 
fore the foundation of the world, but was manifested at 
the end of the times for your sake who are through him be- 
lievers in God, which raised him from the dead, and gave 
him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God. 
Seeing that ye have purified your souls in your obedience 
to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one 
another from the heart fervently: having been begotten 
again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible through 
the word of God, which liveth and abideth.” (1 Peter 
1:17-28). “Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from 
our sins by his blood.” (Rev. 1:5). “And they sing a 
new song, saying worthy art thou to take the book to 
open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst 
purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, 
and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to 
be unto our God a kingdom, and priests and they reign 
upon the earth.” (Rev. 5:9). These passages are suf- 
ficient to show that the conception of a purchase made 
with the blood of Jesus was common to the New Testa- 


BLOOD OF JESUS. 


119 


ment writers. This doctrine has very generally been ac- 
cepted throughout the church. How was and is this pur- 
chase thought of? We may say of patriots that they 
purchased the liberty of their native land with their 
blood. We do not understand by this that they weighed 
out so much blood which some one accepted as payment 
for the liberty of the land. We mean in their effort to 
gain or maintain the liberty of their land they had been 
called upon to fight, and in so doing they had been 
wounded or perhaps killed. In this manner we might 
say that missionaries have purchased with their blood 
certain peoples to God. There can be no doubt that 
Jesus has purchased people unto God with his blood. 
This would mean that he was true to the right even unto 
death and that by his powerful example he induced many 
others to choose the right. While all will admit the 
truth of this, it is not probable that many will accept 
this as the full and exact conception of the purchase made 
through the blood of Jesus. It has generally been thought 
of as a real purchase, that is, a purchase in a commercial 
sense. In such a purchase there must be four things: 
the seller, the buyer, the thing sold and the price paid. 
Jesus is the buyer, man the thing bought and the blood 
of Jesus the price paid, but who is the seller? The time 
was when the church answered that the devil was the 
seller. It was thought that’ Jesus bought man from 
Satan. It is strange that this view prevailed so long, 
since Satan never was the rightful possessor of man, and 
the transaction, as thought of by the church, was not 
moral on the part of Jesus. As Jesus is said to have of- 
fered himself to God, a somewhat indistinct idea seems to 
prevail that Jesus bought man from God. It is not prob- 
able that anyone ever thought this out fully and dis- 
tinctly. It is only one of the hazy half conceptions that 


120 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


have existed only too long in the church. How could 
Jesus buy anything from God, since he says : “All things 
whatsoever the Father hath are mine?” Then the Scrip- 
tures say that he “purchased unto God.” Why should 
he purchase man from God? From the thought of de- 
livering from God’« wrath to the thought of delivering 
from God is not far. But both are contrary to the Scrip- 
tures as we have seen. If Jesus bought neither from God 
nor the devil there is but one possible seller, and that is 
man himself. When Paul says, “ye are not your own ; for 
ye have been bought with a price,” (1 Cor. 6:19) does he 
not indicate that they would be their own if they had not 
been bought? If they were their own, but are no longer 
so because they have been bought, they must have sold 
themselves. If the man is the seller and the thing sold, 
Jesus must give to man the purchase price, that is, his 
blood. God gave Jesus and Jesus gave himself to man- 
kind in general in that he became a man, became a mem- 
ber of the race. But Jesus proposes to give himself, give 
his Spirit to each individual upon a clearly stated condi- 
tion, that is, that the individual love Jesus with all his 
heart. “If any man love me he will keep my word, and 
my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and 
make our abode with him.” (John 14:23). In another 
place he puts it into the negative form. “He that loveth 
father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and 
he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy 
of me.” (Matt. 10 :37). Instead of worthy we might read 
worth. The meaning is essentially the same, but the lat- 
ter is the commercial term. This says plainly that Jesus 
will not give himself to and for a man, who loves any- 
thing more than he loves Jesus. If a man gives himself 
with all his affections to Jesus, Jesus will make his abode 
with him, that is, he will give himself to the man. The 
man must give up himself. 


BLOOD OF JESUS. 


121 


Three passages bearing on this seem at first sight some- 
what difficult. “He that findeth his soul shall lose it, and 
he that loseth his soul for my sake shall find it.” (Matt. 
10:39). “For whosoever would save his soul shall lose it, 
but whosoever shall lose his soul for my sake, the same 
shall find it.” (Luke 9:24). “He that loveth his soul 
loseth it, and he that hateth his soul in this world shall 
keep it unto life eternal.” (John 12 :25) . The reader will 
note that in our Bible life is used instead of soul. These 
passages have generally been thought to refer to martyr- 
dom. The necessity of willingness to suffer martyrdom 
is certainly implied, but it does not exhaust the meaning. 
The passages are of like import, but that of John is the 
fullest and clearest. To love one’s soul is to love one’s 
self. To hate one’s soul in this world is to deny one’s 
self in worldly things. Jesus places in opposition self- 
love in worldly matters and self-denial in worldly mat- 
ters. The self-contented man, the selfish man being un- 
sympathetic grows colder, more crabbed and disagree- 
able as the years go by. He is plainly a withering, a 
perishing man. On the other hand the man who relin- 
quishes self for Jesus, grows kinder, more helpful, more 
joyful, wiser and stronger. Here all is life and growth. 
That soul is saved from the deadly influence of selfishness, 
which is sin. But this is giving self to Jesus for Jesus. 

The man gives himself to Jesus and Jesus gives himself 
to the man. Christ in the man and the man in Christ, 
as Jesus said: “Because I live ye shall live also. In 
that day ye shall know that I am in the Father and ye 
in me and I in you.” (John 14:20). We will now turn 
to the passages quoted, especially Eph. 1 :5-7 and Peter 
1 :17-23. We will observe that with Paul the redemption 
through his blood “is the same as the forgiveness of our 
trespasses.” Now we have already found that forgiving 


122 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


of trespasses is the putting away of sins. Sins can only 
be put away by an earnest effort on man’s part with 
the help of the Holy Spirit. “Redemption through his 
blood is deliverance from sin through the help of the Holy 
Spirit. Peter’s language is quite in harmony with this. 
He says : “Knowing that ye were redeemed from your vain 
manner of life handed down from your Fathers.” They 
were redeemed from a vain and empty life and this seems 
to be equivalent to being begotten again through the 
word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” The 
rescuing from a vain and foolish life is certainly the work 
of the Holy Spirit and to be begotten again through the 
living and abiding word of God, cannot be different from 
being begotten or born of the Holy Spirit. These passages 
show as conclusively as the others that the blood of Jesus 
Christ is the spirit of Jesus, which Jesus gives to man 
who surrenders himself, to help him out of the power of 
sin and Satan into the glorious liberty of the sons of 
God. When we consider the appropriateness of the appel- 
lation no doubt can remain with regard to the identity 
of the Spirit of Jesus and the blood of Jesus. The church 
is the body of Christ and that which is constantly bring- 
ing nourishment to every part, and cleansing every part 
of this body is the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of 
Jesus. No other word would so fully describe the w T ork 
of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, the church, as 
the word Hood. It’ is the life of the body. Without the 
Holy Spirit the church is dead. The application of every- 
thing said of the blood of Jesus to his physical or animal 
blood is a part of that great error of theology in imagin- 
ing that Jesus suffered and died as a substitute for guilty 
man to appease God’s wrath. 


JUSTIFICATION. 


123 


Justification. 

To justify would mean according to the structure of 
the word, to make just. But in use it means, “to prove 
or show to be just, to vindicate, etc. (Theol.) To treat 
as if righteous and just; to pardon, to exculpate; to ab- 
solve.” (Webster). It is said that the Greeks never used 
the word which is translated by the word justify in the 
New Testament in the sense of to make just. This is no 
doubt true, for a word with such a meaning has hardly a 
place in a purely human speech. But if we believe that 
God can and does do more than we can do, we must ex- 
pect either some new words, words not found in human 
vocabularies, or the expansion of the meaning of some 
human words. It is interesting to compare the word 
sanctify with the word justify. Our lexicographers do 
not hesitate to give “to make holy” as the meaning of 
sanctify. With this meaning the word sanctify has no 
place in human speech, for man has never made any 
person or thing absolutely holy. They set persons or 
things apart for sacred uses by rites and ceremonies, but 
the person or thing was not made intrinsically holy there- 
by. We say then that the word justify means to make 
just, as the word sanctify means to make holy. But what 
does the word just mean? Words may be used in a rela- 
tive or in an absolute sense. We say God is good and a 
certain man is good. The word good does not mean the 
same in the two sentences. When we say God is good, we 
mean that he is absolutely so, that he is without fault, 
failing or defect. Not so with the man. He has faults 
and failings, yet compared with men generally, we may 
call him good. He is relatively good. He may be good 
only for sc«me purpose that we have in view. John says: 
“If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and 
the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). Again: “Now are 


124 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


we the children of God,” (3:2) and “Whosoever is born 
of God doth not commit sin: for his seed remaineth in 
him: and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” (1 
John 3:9). Now if we are sons of God we are born of 
God and if we are born of God we cannot sin, yet if we 
say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the 
truth is not in us. If all these statements are taken in 
the same sense, there is a plain contradiction. But if 
we understand that John meant that we are the children 
of God to some degree, that we are partially so, but who- 
soever is completely born of God cannot sin, there is no 
contradiction. So long as we are only partially the 
sons of God we have sin, but when we reach the absolute 
birth, when we are wholly of God we shall be entirely free 
from sin and its allurements. This case is cited to show 
the importance of giving heed to the sense in which words 
are used, that is, whether they are to be taken in their 
absolute, relative or approximate sense. But what does 
the word just mean in the Bible? Prof. Kautsch* has dis- 
cussed very fully the Hebrew words which are translated 
just, righteous, righteousness, etc., but as his book may 
not be in easy reach of many, the result is here given. The 
word translated just or righteous may be applied to any 
person, animal or thing that is adapted to the intended 
use; as we say, “He is the right man for the place, that is 
the right horse for this work, that is the right plow for 
this ground, etc. This is equally true of the correspond- 
ing Greek word.f Let us now consider justification by 
faith, keeping in mind the true meaning of the word: 
“And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto 


* Die Wurzel pnv und ihre Derivata. 

t difccuos means right, fit, proper. 5i7ccu6s ianv a<J>eivcu ras anaprias 
means, he is fit, proper, has all the qualifications to put away sin. 
In I John 1:9 tva atpy is put instead of &<J>eivcu according to later Greek 
usage. “He is righteous to forgi ve” conveys no meaning. 


JUSTIFICATION. 


125 


him for righteousness.” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; 
James 2:23). This is usually understood to mean that 
God overlooked Abraham’s faults and regarded him as a 
righteous man because he believed him. But it is a fixed 
principle of God’s judgment, often expressed in the New 
Testament, that every man shall give an account for what 
he has said and done. Every man shall be judged by his 
deeds. There is no intimation that anything will be ac- 
cepted in lieu of anything else. Now we must either set 
aside this declared principle of God’s judgment, or ques- 
tion the correctness of the above interpretation. If we 
render the passage according to the strict meaning of the 
words, it would read, “And Abraham believed God and it 
was reckoned unto him for fitness. That is, God had a 
purpose. He wished to found a peculiar family and na- 
tion, and inasmuch as Abraham believed God he was 
reckoned fit to become the founder of that family and 
nation. It does not say that the faith of Abraham was 
accepted for righteousness, but in spite of his shortcom- 
ings, on account of his faith he was reckoned fit for the 
purpose which God had in view. A man who does not 
believe God is not fit for God’s work. Little faith con- 
stitutes little fitness; great faith great fitness and abso- 
lute faith, absolute fitness which would be absolute 
righteousness. We are now using the word faith in what 
we believe to be its meaning in the New Testament. (See 
chapter on faith, page 00). The man who is wholly fit 
for God’s purpose is as he should be, right or righteous. 
Justification is the process of making men fit for God’s 
purpose, which is that they shall be like his Son and have 
fellowship with him. God will make us fit for his society. 
If this could be done by a judicial act, there is no appar- 
ent reason why God should not at once justify the whole 
world. It ought to be clear to every one that so great a 


126 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


work as preparing vile men for the society of angels and 
of God himself cannot be accomplished by a forensic act, 
nor in a very short time by any means. Man’s impatience 
has set limits to God’s work in very strange ways. Con- 
version is compressed into a very few days, or it may be 
a few minutes. Justification is still swifter — as quick 
as the thought of God. With many conversion being ac- 
complished justification is left to God and sanctification 
to the other world. Conversion is the turning from wrong 
to right, from sin to holiness, from Satan to God, and 
must continue till every vestige of wrong is gone, and the 
heart and life are in accordance with the will and pur- 
pose of God. Conversion then covers the whole ground 
from the first turning from the wrong to the right, till 
perfection is reached. Conversion is the same as justifica- 
tion which is the same as sanctification. These are names 
for the different sides of the same thing. In conversion 
or turning, the human side is a little more emphasized 
than in the others. Wdiere there is a partial conversion 
there is a partial justification and a partial sanctifica- 
tion, but a part should never be taken for the whole. 

The contention is not that the word justify is never 
used in the New Testament in the sense of exonerating, 
excusing, for it is used in this sense when it is used to 
represent the acts of men, especially bad men, as in Luke 
10:29, the lawyer wished to justify himself, that is, he 
wished to find an excuse for not complying with the law ; 
and in Luke 16:15 Jesus says to the Pharisees that they 
justify themselves, by which he certainly did not mean 
that they were making themselves righteous. But when 
the word represents an act of God, then it must be un- 
derstood in a sense consistent with God’s character. When 
it is said that God justifies the ungodly, (Rom. 4:5) we 
must not think that he merely excuses or whitewashes the 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


127 


ungodly, but that he makes them really just. If God 
had been seeking a reason for excusing man, works would 
have answered the purpose better than faith. This state- 
ment may be taken as self-evident for men have almost 
universally accepted it and acted upon it. The thought 
of justification as an act of excusing is the reason for the 
high estimate set on forms, rites and ceremonies, such as 
circumcision and baptism. Works have no power to make 
a man better, but through faith Jesus can lift man up to 
God. It is only through faith that man can be justified, 
that is, made perfectly righteous. 

Teaching of Jesus. 

Whatever else men have thought about J esus, they have 
generally admitted that he was a great teacher. Indeed 
if one should affirm that he was the greatest teacher the 
world has ever seen, very few would dissent. But Jesus 
did not gather his disciples into a lecture room, and there 
deliver his teachings in successive and connected dis- 
courses. Neither did he give the world a doctrinal sys- 
tem in book form. There is but one mention in our gos- 
pels of his writing, and that is in a very doubtful passage. 
(John 8:1-12). If he did write with his finger upon the 
ground, no one has told us what he wrote. He went from 
place to place with his disciples, and mingled freely with 
all classes of people, and delivered his teaching as the 
occasion, that is, something in his surroundings, sug- 
gested. Matthew tells us, however, that he once went up 
into a mountain, sat down and taught his disciples. 
What Matthew has recorded of his words spoken at that 
time, is known as the Sermon on the Mount. Although 
this sermon contains only about 2300 words, and may 
easily be read in 15 minutes, it is usually divided in our 
Bibles into 19 paragraphs, and the sentences in some of 
these paragraphs are generally not thought to have real 


128 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


inner connection with each other. According to the com- 
mon conception this is not a sermon, but a collection of 
sayings, each good in itself. I hold this view to be false, 
and believe that Jesus presented in this sermon a doc- 
trinal system in logical order. To show this would be 
somewhat difficult, for the old impressions with regard 
to a passage of Scripture so familiar as this, can not 
easily be replaced by new ones. It is very much to be 
regretted that this sermon has not been understood, for 
when understood it is a key to his entire work as well 
as to his other teaching. 

As already said the teaching of Jesus was called forth 
by the occasion. Such lessons are all the more impres- 
sive if understood. But Jesus was not understood even 
by his chosen Twelve. To commit teaching thus to such 
leaden ears and gross hearts would seem more hopeless 
than to write them on leaves and cast them to the winds. 
But the teaching of Jesus was not lost. He clothed his 
thoughts in forms that preserved them for future genera- 
tions. He has left us an outline of his teaching, not so 
full as the Sermon on the Mount, yet so comprehensive 
that we may easily arrange all his teachings in it, and so 
clear that it can hardly be misunderstood. This is given 
in the five parables beginning with “the lost sheep/’ A 
careful examination of these parables will show the cor- 
rectness of the above statement. 

In the parable of the lost sheep Jesus assumes that 
there are some persons who are lost. This he could well 
assume for no one ever doubted it. There are persons 
who are lost to their family, to their friends, to society, 
to their country. They are so, if they are worthless, and 
still more so if they are injurious, and one can hardly 
be worthless without being injurious. Jesus does not 
say that all men are lost. That would have been offensive 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


129 


to many. On the contrary he allows his hearers to take 
it for granted that there are some, perhaps many, who 
are not lost. He speaks of the ninety and nine righteous 
persons who need no repentance. Starting with the un- 
doubted fact that some are lost, he told them of the joy 
in heaven over one sinner who repenteth. He does not 
say that there is joy over the finding of one sinner, nor 
that God is seeking sinners, yet this is clearly implied. 
To suppose that the heavenly powers are idle spectators 
of the struggles of sinners, and that they rejoice over the 
repenting sinner would be absurd. As the joy in heaven 
over the repentance of one sinner is great, so the effort 
put forth by the heavenly powers to accomplish this end 
is great. The truth that God is seeking the lost was not 
new to those whom Jesus was addressing. Had not God 
often and earnestly called on his people to return to him ? 
Turn ye, turn ye, why w T ill ye die? I have no pleasure in 
the death of a sinner, saith the Lord. Yet Jesus would 
impress upon the minds and hearts of his hearers and 
of all men in all ages the two facts, that there are lost 
persons, and that God is seeking the lost, and therefore 
he gave three parables concerning the lost. The shepherd 
seeks, finds and rejoices over the lost sheep; the woman 
seeks with great diligence, finds and rejoices over the lost 
coin; the father rejoices over the return of the lost son. 
We have been thrice told and yet these truths have not 
been properly pondered. 

The third parable is not merely a repetition of the first 
and the second. In the first an irrational animal goes 
astray and wanders farther and farther awmy until the 
shepherd finds it. The easiest way he could bring it back 
to the fold was to lay it on his shoulders and carry it. 
The sheep was guilty of no moral wrong in going astray 
and had no part whatever in its own recovery. The sec* 


130 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


ond is similar to this. The piece of money did not lose 
itself, and it did nothing toward finding itself. It is 
therefore manifestly incorrect to represent Jesus as doing 
in every respect with the sinner as the shepherd did with 
the sheep. These parables emphasize the facts that there 
are lost persons, and that Jesus is seeking the lost, but 
the manner of seeking and of finding and of bringing 
home must be different from that of the shepherd, and 
of the woman. The shepherd did not seek the sheep as 
the woman did the coin, but each sought according to 
the thing lost. 

The third parable presents a lost man. The son leaves 
his father voluntarily. He asked for and received his 
portion from his father. Did the father not know the 
weakness, the folly of his son? If he did, we should have 
expected him to say, Son you must remain under my care. 
A human father might not know his son’s weakness, but 
God knows the human heart, and it is the universal belief 
that Jesus made the father represent God at least in some 
measure. However contrary it may seem to our sense of 
propriety, it is a fact that God gives each his portion, and 
seemingly permits him to go his way. The crime as well 
as the deed of righteousness is done through God-given 
strength. The fact that God gives each his portion and 
seemingly lets each go his way might well lead us to 
consider the efficacy of the very strict parental restraint 
often thrown around children, and of legal enactments 
for the betterment of erring men. Jesus was not in haste 
to correct people. This may be seen at the home of 
Martha. He certainly saw that Martha was not doing 
the best thing, yet he did not correct her till she made it 
necessary by her demand upon him. He even refused to 
interfere when one brother was wronging the other. 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


131 


(Luke 12:13-21). He, however, gave instead a lesson 
which, if heeded, would correct that and many other 
wrongs. 

The going away of the son was a voluntary act, and so 
must his return be. It is not said that the father found 
him feeding swine and bore him home in his arms or on 
his shoulders. The son remained in the field till he came 
to himself and then must walk home. At first sight it 
might seem that the father did not seek his son at all. But 
in that case a chief fact of the preceding parables would 
be wanting in this. On closer examination it will be seen 
that the son does not come to grief, and to himself, merely 
through his riotous living. “There arose a mighty famine 
in that land, and he began to be in want.” The famine 
was not the result of his folly, and it would not have 
been mentioned if it had been a mere accident, if it were 
permissible to speak of accidents in God’s world. It is 
spoken of as one of the factors, an important factor in- 
deed, in bringing the son to a change of mind. The famine 
is not expressly attributed to the father, for the parable 
in its outward form does not transcend the limits of 
human possibility. But so soon as the mind penetrates 
to the inner meaning of the parable, and sees whom the 
father represents, it recognizes that God caused the 
mighty famine. A devout Jew could hardly do other- 
wise than attribute the famine to God. The diligent seek- 
ing set forth in the first and second parables is here 
implied in the famine. But the love of the father clearly 
shown in his joy over the return of his son, forbids our 
thinking that the famine was the only act of seeking. We 
must think of it rather as the last resort. God seeks more 
through abundance than through famine, more through 
sunshine than through storm, more through health and 


132 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


prosperity than through sickness and adversity. But 
those who cannot be found by gentleness and loving kind- 
ness must be sought otherwise. 

The son was lost and found again. We have seen how 
he was lost or went astray, and that he was found through 
a famine. The finding here means that he came to him- 
self, that is, he came to his right mind. He had not been 
sane. His mind was perverted, and nothing appeared to 
him as it really was. He thought a life away from his 
father would be happier than a life with him. Right- 
eousness was irksome, while sin and folly seemed to be 
pleasure. But he came to see that he was not happy but 
miserable. How very miserable he was, he, of course, 
could not at once comprehend, but he realized his condi- 
tion far enough to see that the life with his father was 
far better than the life he was then living. He determined 
to return to his father’s house. But how could he re- 
turn, and what steps would bring him home? To answer 
these questions we must consider where he had gone and 
how he had gone. The lost son “took his journey into a 
far country.” One can not go away from God by travel- 
ing many miles in any direction, but one can go very far 
from him without leaving the house in which one was 
born. One can go away from God only in one’s thoughts 
and affections. Not steps or bodily motion of any kind, 
but the tendency of the heart takes one away from God. 
This lost son, as every other lost son, went away from 
God in that he thought continually more and more about 
himself, and correspondingly less and less about God. 
He loved himself and his sensual pleasures more and 
more, and God he loved less and less. It must not be 
thought that Jesus meant that this lost son wasted his 
money. Some lost sons do waste their money and become 
very poor, even beggars. But many become rich even 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


133 


millionaires. What is common to all lost sons is that 
they waste their God-given powers in unrighteous living. 
To Jesus a millionaire who is trying to satisfy his soul 
with sensual pleasures, is as one trying to fill himself 
with husks, or better, with swine’s feed. This lost son, 
whether rich or poor, was seeking pleasure in and through 
sensuality, that is, in the practice of any one or any 
number of the things comprised under “lust of the flesh, 
lust of the eye and the vainglory of life.” When these 
practices failed of their desired effect, as is usual, he 
went into deeper and grosser sensuality. When the inten- 
sified sensuality brought no longer pleasure but disap- 
pointment, life began to be very dreary. He came to 
himself, discerned his destitution, and at the same time 
remembered the peaceful and happy lives of servants of 
God whom he had known. He longed to share that life 
with them . “How many hired servants of my father’s 
have bread enough and to spare, and I perish here with 
hunger ! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say 
unto him, Father I have sinned aginst heaven, and before 
thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make 
me as one of thy hired servants.” Here is the recognition 
of spiritual poverty, and mourning over the same; here is 
meekness and a longing for a better life. It is plain 
that Jesus has here put' into action the beginning of the 
Sermon on the Mount. There we read, “Blessed are the 
poor in spirit,” here the lost son discerns his destitution : 
there we read, “Blessed are they that mourn,” and here 
we find the lost’ son in deep grief ; there we read, “Blessed 
are the meek,” and here we hear the lost son say, “Make 
me as one of thy hired servants.” There we read, “Blessed 
are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness,” and 
here we hear the lost son longing to be again in his fath- 
er’s house, to be at peace with God. The steps then by 


134 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

which he returned to his father are those marked out in 
the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed there are no other 
steps by which one can return to God. The beginning of 
every betterment in life is necessarily the recognition of 
the need of such betterment. There is joy in heaven over 
one sinner who recognizes the need of repentance and 
repents, but there is no joy over the ninety and nine who 
need no repentance, that is, who do not feel, recognize 
the need of repentance. There is no one who does not 
really need repentance, but there are thousands who do 
not feel the need of it. Of these Jesus speaks in terms 
of their self-valuation, and calls them persons who need 
no repentance. So the persons who have discovered their 
spiritual poverty he calls the poor in spirit. The one 
who needs no repentance is just the opposite of the one 
who is poor in spirit. The first step then is to recognize 
one’s spiritual poverty, and the second is to mourn over 
it. A man must be indifferent to spiritual good, spiritual 
riches, which is righteousness, if he is not concerned 
about his spiritual poverty. This consciousness of one’s 
own imperfection and weakness must eradicate all haugh- 
tiness, arrogance and harshness towards others. There- 
fore, blessed are the meek, the gentle, the tender, the 
sympathetic, for the word in the original admits of any 
and all these shades of meaning. One cannot mourn over 
spiritual poverty without longing for its opposite, spir- 
itual riches or righteousness. It is best to think of right- 
eousness as right being. To be righteous is to be right, 
that is, as one should be before God. Spirituality and 
righteousness are frequently taken in a very narrow, yet 
very vague sense. Spirituality must be the same as the 
fruit of the Spirit, which is, “love, joy, peace, long suffer- 
ing, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-con- 
trol.” When Paul says love, he means primarily love to 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


135 


God, and love of God includes the love of goodness, beau- 
ty, truth, purity, nobleness, wherever they may be found, 
in nature, in literature, and in the lives and actions of 
men and women. Joy and peace are not affections sud- 
denly placed or strangely produced in the soul, as one 
might put packages of something into a receptacle. If 
they be sane and intelligible, they must be the result of 
a proper comprehension of the value and relation of 
things. The soul must be free from the sway of pas- 
sions and foolish notions. That this cannot be attained 
otherwise than by serious and prayerful reflection under 
the guidance of those who * have themselves been made 
free by the truth is evident. What shall we say more 
of long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meek- 
ness and self-control? Are these to be found elsewhere 
than in refined and ennobled souls? The man who has 
the fruit of the Spirit is developed in intellect, rich in 
knowledge and strong in every virtue. He is a thoroughly 
cultured man. Spirituality or righteousness means the 
proper development of the whole man according to the 
plan and purpose of God his Creator. That there are 
serious misapprehensions with regard to this is evident 
from the fact that many people are trying to be religious 
without being cultured, while perhaps a greater num- 
ber are trying to be cultured without being religious. 
Both efforts are equally futile. Truly blessed are they 
who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for this is 
the longing after the full and harmonious development 
of all their powers. One who has discovered his own 
deficiencies and is manfully striving to get right, will 
feel the need of God’s mercy. One who seeks and hopes 
for God’s mercy must not be unmerciful to his fellows, 
else he would be like the servant, who having been re- 
leased from prison and from a great debt by his lord, 


136 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


refused to have patience with a fellow-servant; in con- 
sequence of which his lord rescinded the favors granted, 
and compelled him to pay all that was due. ( Matt. 18 :23- 
25.) “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain 
mercy.” 

In thus walking meekly, loving mercy and seeking 
righteousness the heart and life are cleansed. But the 
cleansing of the heart is not merely the putting away of 
coarse and sensual thoughts and desires. It is that, but 
it is also much more. All foolish notions of life, all 
superstitions, all beliefs recognizing in any way fate or 
magic must be utterly removed. This is not an easy 
matter, for magic has long had a firm hold on the human 
mind. All religions except that of the Bible are full of 
magic ; and it would be difficult to find a so-called Chris- 
tian theolog}^ that does not show some trace of the in- 
fluence of magic. The cleansing of the heart is the act 
of coming into the right relation to God the Creator of 
all things. As we come into the right relation to him, 
we understand him, know him better. “Blessed are the 
pure in heart, for they shall see God.” One always sees God 
in proportion to the purity of the heart. When the heart 
has been made perfectly pure we shall see him as he is. 
Purity of heart is the highest personal attainment, and 
from this results the highest joy — to see God, to under- 
stand God, to associate with God! The pure heart, re- 
joicing in its peace, in its harmony w T ith God, desires 
that all men might share the same, and glady reaches out 
a hand to the fallen, the benighted, the lame, the blind, 
to bring them to the light and to the enjoyment of health 
and peace; and while it does much by conscious effort, 
it does still more by its intrinsic worth and power. Jesus 
is the Prince of peace, the great Peacemaker between God 
and man. Likewise the pure heart is constantly remov- 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


137 


ing from darkened hearts the enmity against God, and 
so making peace. As purity is the highest development, 
peacemaking is the highest activity and influence of the 
human soul. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall 
be called the sons of God/’ they shall bear the same title 
that Jesus bears. 

We should observe that of these seven steps five per- 
tain to personal culture, while only two, the showing of 
mercy and the making of peace are actions that go out 
to others. The making of peace is the broader, the higher, 
in fact it comprehends the showing of mercy. The mak- 
ing of peace is the one great activity of those who would 
be the sons of God. Everywhere in this sin-cursed world 
there is strife. Nation is in conflict with nation, class 
with class, neighbor with neighbor, yea more, every soul 
suffers anguish by reason of the conflicts that rage within, 
and all this because man is at variance with his God. 
To make perfect peace between the nations, classes, and 
individuals, one must bring peace into the soul — peace 
with itself and with its God. In considering these steps 
which lead from the lowest degradation to the highest 
exaltation, even into the presence and society of God, 
we must not think that each step must be completed be- 
fore the next is begun. It is not to be understood that 
one must come to a full comprehension of one’s spiritual 
poverty before one begins to mourn. In point of time, 
we may say, they are simultaneous, but they are related 
to each other as cause and effect. Oft will the spiritual 
poverty be discovered, and the course will be rebegun till 
the last vestige of sin is removed from the soul. 

In these few sentences, the so-called beatitudes, Jesus 
has indicated the way out of poverty to riches, out of 
darkness into light, out of death into life. All the rest 
of the Sermon on the Mount is a development and eluci- 


138 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


dation of these sentences. He completes the law by 
showing its real intent and purpose, so that it may be 
a greater help to us ; he warns us against the great dan- 
ger of falling into ostentation and the love of approba- 
tion, when we do our righteousness, which he divides 
into alms giving, prayer, and fasting. All that we do 
to others should be done with the purpose of benefiting, 
so that alms-giving may well represent, if not fully com- 
prehend all our deeds to or for others. Prayer is our 
intercourse with God. Fasting well represents all acts 
of self -culture. Our acts towards our fellow-beings, our 
acts towards God, and our acts toward ourselves make 
up our whole life. He warns us against the love of 
money, and against yielding to the enticements of the 
world, and against harshness, but commends gentleness, 
mercy and sympathy; and finally urges us to seek first 
the kingdom and his righteousness, adding that we must 
enter into it by the narrow gate and the straightened 
way. This straitened way is undoubtedly the way he 
marked out in the beginning of the Sermon. All other 
ways, so often and loudly proclaimed, are so many at- 
tempts to climb over the wall instead of entering through 
the door or gate. The lost son of the parable must have 
returned to his father by this straitened way. 

When the lost son is joyfully received by his father, he 
passes out of our sight, and his brother comes into view. 
This elder brother thought himself very good indeed. 
He declared boldly that he had never transgressed any 
of his father’s commands. He is clearly one of the ninety 
and nine who needed no repentance. In his own eyes he 
was good enough. The kind father permits him to arro- 
gate so much. He does not rebuke him but gently en- 
treats him. But he is sore displeased with what his 
father has done and is doing, and he will not enter into 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


139 


his father’s house nor into his father’s joy. How unlike 
his father is this self-righteous son ! The younger son had 
sinned grossly but he had returned to his father. The 
elder brother with all his outward correctness of life, 
was in his thinking and feeling very far from his father, 
so far indeed, that he could not understand his father, 
much less enter into his joy. He was in short a worse 
man than his brother. Jesus said “that the publicans and 
harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (chief 
priests and elders of the people). There are three class- 
es: those who recognize their spiritual poverty, and 
mourn over it ; those who know that they are sinners, yet 
do not take this to heart, are indifferent to a better life; 
and those who feel no need of repentance. The first and 
second classes know and confess that they are sinners, 
the third are they who justify themselves, and are there- 
fore an abomination in the sight of God. All men are 
therefore sinners, are lost. This was not announced at 
the beginning, but is clearly shown by the parable. 

The teaching of these three parables is that all unre- 
generate men are lost, whether they recognize the fact 
or not, and that God is diligently seeking the lost. He 
finds the lost by bringing them to themselves, to their 
right minds. When they come to themselves they must 
and they will arise and go to their Father. The way is 
long and strait, and there will be those who will revile, 
as did the elder brother, and will even persecute, but the 
Father meets and accompanies the returning son, so 
that whatever the difficulties of the way may be, he ar- 
rives finally safe at the house of rejoicing. 

“There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; 
and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting 
his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, What 
is this I hear of thee? render the account of thy steward- 


140 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


ship for thou canst be no longer steward. And the 
steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that 
my lord taketh away the stewardship from me? I have 
not strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am re- 
solved what to do, that when I am put out of the steward- 
ship, they may receive me into their houses. And calling 
to him each one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the 
first. How much owest thou unto my lord? And he 
said a hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, 
Take thy bond, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. 
Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? 
And he said a hundred measures of wheat. He saith 
unto him, Take thy bond and write fourscore. And his 
lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had 
done wisely : for the sons of this world are for their own 
generation wiser than the sons of light. And I say unto 
you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon 
of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may 
receive you into eternal tabernacles.” This parable is 
addressed to the disciples, by which appellation we are 
not to understand the twelve exclusively, but all who 
recognized him as their teacher. He presents to them 
a man of this world, who has learned that all his means 
of support are about to be taken away from him. The 
first thought that comes to his mind is that he must 
provide for his future. He first thinks of honest toil, 
and then of begging. That is, he thought of providing for 
his future by works, by his own efforts. His final thought 
was to make friends who would receive him as a friend, 
as an honored guest into their houses. He called together 
his lord’s debtors. We learn from a parable in the 18th 
chapter of Matthew, that a debtor, if he had not where- 
with to pay, might be cast into prison, or he and his wife 
and his children might be sold. It is reasonable to sup- 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


141 


pose that some, if not all, of these debtors were at the 
time unable to pay. If so, they were wholly at the mercy 
of the steward, who was the legal representative of his 
lord. They must have been filled with grave anxiety 
when the steward demanded, How much owest thou 
my lord? The question was quite unnecessary unless it 
was intended to make the debtor feel the danger of his 
position, for the steward had the bond in his hands, and 
could read the amount. Instead of demanding payment 
he bade one write fifty measures of oil instead of one hun- 
dred, and another eighty measures of wheat instead of 
one hundred and so on. He did not make a general re- 
duction according to a fixed scale, but he dealt with each 
individually, so as to bind each to him by a bond of grat- 
itude. In doing this he was exercising his legal right. 
He used the right, the means still in his hands to make 
friends, who would receive him into their houses, when 
he became destitute. He acted dishonestly, for he was 
a son of this world, but he acted with energy and worldly 
prudence. Jesus hereupon declares that the sons of this 
world are wiser in their affairs than the sons of light, or 
the enlightened are in their matters. The justification for 
this affirmation lies in the fact that this representative of 
the sons of this world acted with energy and wisdom in 
providing for the future, while the children of the light 
are comparatively lethargic with reference to the great 
future that lies beyond this life. Every believer in a 
future life knows that every thing that contributes to 
his support in this life must cease to do so at death. “We 
brought nothing into this world and it is certain that 
we can carry nothing out.” (1 Tim. 6:7.) So every believer 
in a future life knows at death he will come into the same 
condition with regard to support, into which the steward 
came when the stewardship was taken from him. But 


142 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

does he act with the same energy and wisdom? On the 
basis of this parable Jesus earnestly admonishes his dis- 
ciples to use the unrighteous mammon, which they con- 
trolled, so as to make friends who would receive them 
into everlasting homes. By mammon we usually under- 
stand money. Unrighteous mammon would then be ill- 
gotten gain. It is also usually thought that the friends 
are to be made through deeds of charity, by giving alms, 
etc. It is then objected that ill-gotten gain should not 
be given as charity, but returned to the rightful owner. 
It should have been observed that there is not one word 
said as to how the unrighteous mammon should be ap- 
plied. It is only said that they should make friends 
therewith. The use of the unrighteous mammon will 
depend wholly upon the character of the person whose 
friendship one seeks. It seems to me that two views are 
possible with regard to unrighteous mammon. On ac- 
count of the sinful acts of men in their struggle for 
wealth, one may regard all earthy possession as polluted 
with sin. It is also possible to think that Jesus names 
the unrighteous mammon as if he would say, use the 
unrighteous mammon to gain friends, and of course, so 
much the more the righteous mammon, indeed all the 
goods and powers you possess. It is not necessary to 
stop to consider why Jesus used this expression. It is 
more important to have clearly in mind who are the 
persons whom we should seek to gain as friends. Since 
these friends are to receive us into eternal tabernacles, 
they must have power over the eternal. They can there- 
fore be no others than God and his Christ. The admoni- 
tion then is that we use our earthly possessions and all 
our powers so as to make God our friend. The char- 
acter of God fully defines and determines the manner of 
using these possessions. That it is possible to make God 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


143 


our friend by the use of our possessions and powers, is 
clearly shown by the description of the judgment given 
in Matthew 25, in which Jesus says with regard to every 
good deed: “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these 
my brethren, even these least ye did it unto me.” Every 
good deed is then done to Jesus, and he will not fail to 
show himself grateful. But the deed must be really good, 
what God will call good. To learn what constitutes a 
good deed we must turn again to the Sermon on the 
Mount. Only acts done according to the principles 
there laid down are good. All our deeds must be done 
with one and the same purpose, namely to please God. 
The eye must be single and directed to Him alone. If 
w r e use our means, which comprise not only our money, 
our realty, our goods and chattels, but every power and 
faculty of the soul, to please God, we are laying up 
treasures in heaven, for we are gaining the friendship of 
God, who can and will finally receive us into His man- 
sion. If we use our means selfishly, or with an eye 
directed to men, we are laying up treasures on earth, 
where moth and rust doth consume and thieves break 
through and steal. 

The fact that Jesus chose a steward to show the true 
relation of man to earthly possessions suggests the 
thought that Jesus does not regard man as possessor of 
the things which he controls during this life. He seems 
to say to all men, You are mistaken in thinking your- 
selves owners. You are only stewards, and your Lord 
will one day say to each of you, Render the account of 
thy stewardship for thou canst be no longer steward. 
This view is confirmed by what Jesus says after finish- 
ing the parable, namely: “If therefore ye have not been 
faithful in the unrighteous mannon, who will commit 


144 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been 
faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that 
which is your own?” 

“And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, scoffed 
at him.” More literally, they turned up their noses 
at him. No doubt it seemed to them that Jesus was sug- 
gesting to the publicans that they could buy their way 
to heaven. They knew exactly how one could get to 
heaven. One must be a child of Abraham, must be cir- 
cumcised, bathe frequently, keep the Sabbath, wash one’s 
hands before every meal, pay tithes of mint and cummin, 
etc. We dare not censure the Pharisees severely, when 
we remember that religious people generally regard the 
idea of getting to heaven simply by being good as absurd. 
Nearly all hold with the Pharisees that some sacrament- 
al acts are the essential things. The performance of such 
sacramental acts enables one to justify one’s self, that is, 
to be self-righteous, for however imperfect the daily life 
may be, these acts may be attended to perfectly. The 
self-righteous enter into the kingdom violently. They 
do not enter it by the steps named in the Sermon on the 
Mount, that is, by change of inner and outer life, but 
boldly claim with all their sordid selfishness to be in the 
kingdom already. This is what Jesus means by taking 
the kingdom by violence. Jesus could not prove to the 
Pharisees that their conception of what was necessary to 
salvation was wrong. If a man has reached the conclu- 
sion that God will accept him on account of one, two or 
three things, how can one show him that God will not 
accept him? Nothing but the clear and distinct word 
of God can convince him that he is not accepted, and 
unfortunately with many this word must be spoken in 
person. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, 
did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


145 


out devils, and by thy name do many mighty works? 
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you.” 
(Matt. 7:22.) 

But if Jesus could not prove to the Pharisees that 
they were mistaken, he could and did point out with the 
greatest clearness what is necessary to acceptance with 
God. This he did by sketching two characters and show- 
ing the destiny of each after death. The description of 
each is very short, giving just what we need to know 
and nothing more. There was a certain rich man who 
was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuous- 
ly every day. A beggar was laid at the entrance of his 
house. This beggar was covered with sores and was un- 
able to help himself in any way. He was of course hun- 
gry. His exposed and neglected condition is shown by 
the fact that the dogs came and licked his sores. The 
condition of the beggar is told partly on his own account 
and partly to enable us to understand the character of 
the rich man the better. It would be improper in mak- 
ing up our estimate of the rich man, to impute to him 
any fault or failing not mentioned in the parable. If 
we imagine that he was condemned for some sin not 
indicated in the parable, we make the parable useless, if 
not misleading. We may therefore think, of him as a 
very respectable man. It is probable that the persons 
who brought the beggar to his door believed the rich 
man to be the most benevolent person in the communi- 
ty. Why else would they have brought him there? Cer- 
tainly they would not have taken the trouble to carry 
the beggar to his gate, if he had been generally considered 
a stingy, hard-hearted man. In thinking of his neglect 
of the beggar two things must be kept in mind. The con- 
dition of the beggar was most miserable, such as should 
move any one to pity. But on the other hand he must 


146 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


have been a loathsome object. Who would gladly take 
such a person into his house and lay him in his bed? Of 
the many who have severely censured the hard-heartedness 
of the rich man there may be some who would shudder 
at the thought of touching such an invalid, should they 
see him in his sickening wretchedness at their own door. 
What then is the character of the rich man? He was a 
wealthy respectable gentleman who thought that his 
money was his own and for his own use. He loved the 
good things of this world. He admired fine clothing, and 
he bought himself the best. He enjoyed good cheer, and 
he had his table furnished with the most delicious things. 
He may have found pleasure in literature and music; 
and he may have felt that his table joy was incomplete 
without the conversation of the witty, the wise and the 
cultured. To this lover of the agreeable and the beauti- 
ful the sight of the beggar must have been very offensive. 
The eye that can rest indifferently upon the beauties of 
nature and art, and upon the loathsome ravages of dis- 
ease must be coarse and brutish. The rich man was cer- 
tainly not coarse and brutish, but refined. That he 
did not order his servants to remove the loathsome object 
from his sight, can be explained only by the assumption 
that he was moved to pity. The feeling of pity was suffi- 
cient to restrain the natural act of disgust he felt, which 
would have been to have the cause of the disgust removed 
somewhere, anywhere, without regard to what might be- 
come of so worthless a creature as the beggar seemed 
to be. Likewise the feeling of disgust hindered the nat- 
ural act of pity, which would have been to take the beg- 
gar into his house and care for him. It must be re- 
membered that he could not send this invalid to a hos- 
pital, as would be done to-day, for none existed. We 
must not imagine that he considered the expense that the 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


147 


care of the beggar would have caused him. He might 
have found it difficult to induce his servants to touch 
the ulcerated body. It might have been necessary for 
him to wash and dress that body with his own hands. 
All this he would very probably have done, if he had 
known or believed that the conversation of the beggar 
would have contributed greatly to his enjoyment. He 
was seeking pleasure and did not wish to be disturbed 
in his enjoyments. The result of the conflicting forces, 
pity and disgust, was that he tolerated the presence of 
the beggar, and allowed him to get some scanty remains 
of food. The reading indicates that he got something 
but not enough to satisfy his hunger. It is not said that 
the beggar died of hunger, and it is not probable that 
what is related in the parable took place within the 
space of a day or two. More probable is the supposition 
that the beggar lay many days at the door of the rich 
man, who had therefore ample time to consider his duty 
towards his helpless brother. But in that case he must 
have gotten something to eat. Wherein then does this 
rich man differ from thousands of rich men today, who 
call themselves Christians? 

The beggar’s character is sketched in very few words. 
“ A certain beggar named Lazarus.” Lazarus is the Latin 
form of the Greek Lazaros, which is a shortened Hellen- 
ized form of Eleazar, which means God is help or helper. 
Jesus does not merely say that the beggar trusted God, 
which might be true though the trust was not full and 
constant, but he says that his name was God-help, or 
God-is-help, that is, that was his character. We are not 
to understand that Jesus tells us what name the beggar 
had received from his parents, for that would be of no 
use to us. This name Jesus gives to indicate the man’s 
character. What Jesus would say is not “and a certain 


148 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

beggar named Lazarus/’ but, a certain beggar who trusted 
God with all his heart, and so this passage should read 
in our English Bible. In that heart there was no doubt 
of God’s goodness, of God’s faithfulness. Jesus has here 
presented to us the greatest hero of literature. Many 
men have been resolute in the presence of vastly superior 
foes, others have struggled against sore reverses of for- 
tune, or endured the desertion of friends with composure 
and steadfastness that can come only from a strong faith 
in God. But whose faith was ever tried as was this 
beggar’s? He was destitute of every earthly comfort. 
He heard no word of sympathy much less of consolation 
and cheer; no kind hand tried to relieve his suffering; 
neglected, spurned, yet his faith did not waver, his trust 
in God was not clouded one moment by doubt. Now 
who that has passed through troubles, disappointments, 
afflictions, can say that he did not murmur, did not 
complain, did not have hours of darkness and despond- 
ency? The more carefully we contemplate the life of this 
beggar the greater he will seem to us to be. 

We may now see the purpose and teaching of this par- 
able. The lesson of the parable of the unjust steward was 
that acceptance with God would certainly be attained by 
the proper use of whatever means one controlled. Room 
was left for the thought that one having large means might 
do more good, and consequently be a more profitable serv- 
ant than one having less means. This parable of the rich 
man and the beggar set forth plainly and fully the only 
ground of acceptance with God. The rich man was not 
an infidel, not a scoffer. He believed in God and wor- 
shiped God as respectable Jews generally did. He was 
selfish, not intensely so, but selfish. His pleasure was not 
in communing with God, and in striving to bring him- 
self into harmony with God’s will, not in laboring with 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


149 


God to banish sin and the consequent misery by sowing 
the seeds of faith, hope and love, in the hearts of all. His 
pleasures were bodily pleasures, not very bad in them- 
selves, eating, drinking, the wearing of fine clothes and 
the like. When the soul was separated from the body 
through which it had received all the pleasures it had 
ever known, it was in misery. This was a necessary 
consequence of the selfish sensuous life. The beggar 
knew no sensuous pleasure. But we must not suppose 
that his life was a dark and dreary one. Trust in God 
was the substance of his life, and communion with God 
his joy. He overcame the world with all its desires, 
troubles, trials, and disappointments. “And this is the 
victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.” 
(1 John 5:4.) When the beggar’s soul was separated from 
the body, it did not leave behind that which had been 
ministering to its pleasure, but rather that which had 
been a hindrance. It did not go out into a strange and 
friendless world, but as the released bird joyfully hastens 
to its home, so it went to God unto whom it had been 
reaching out its hands in confidence and love all the past 
years. 

Why did the rich man go away into torment? Because 
he had lived a selfish life, a life centered in himself. Such 
a life is necessarily sensuous if not basely carnal. Why 
did the beggar enter into happiness? Because he had 
lived a life of faith, hope and love, a life centered in 
God, which is necessarily a spiritual life. Not because 
of any good works he had done did he enter into the joy 
of his Lord, for he did no good work. Jesus has here 
presented a life of faith, hope and love apart from all 
good works, thereby showing, and this is the real purpose 
of the parable, that the ground of acceptance with God 
is faith and not works. If the soul is full of faith, 


150 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

hope and love, it will use the body to express these affec- 
tions in acts. The body of the beggar was incapable. 
The spirit was willing, but the body was weak, too weak 
to comply with any desire of the soul. The defect was in 
the body. The body of the rich man was capable, but 
the soul did not use it in deeds of faith, hope and love. 
Here the defect was in the soul. 

Inasmuch as the beggar had such faith, and prayed 
so constantly, why was he left in his affliction? Why 
did God permit this good, confiding man to remain in 
his suffering till the day of his death? How often the 
question is asked, Why does God permit me to suffer? 
I have faith in him, pray to him. Has he forgotten me? 
Forsaken me? Philosophers and poets have striven to 
show why God deals with men as he does. It is generally 
said that these attempts have not been successful. It 
seems to us that health and wealth are blessings, and we 
think that God has promised to bless those who put their 
trust in him and pray to him. According to the ordinary 
conception, God should give health and wealth to all who 
believe in him, and withhold these blessings from all the 
disobedient. One might easily conclude that religion 
would be greatly advanced, if to every one who professes 
faith in Jesus and takes membership in some church. 
God would give health and wealth, and would withhold 
these from these who do not confess Jesus. It is plain 
that men would profess faith in Jesus, if it were known 
that they could thereby gain the temporal goods they 
so much desire. But would they be any better in con- 
sequence of this? They would love the world just as 
they do now, and love God just as little as they do now. 
There would be more pretended, but perhaps less real 
faith than now. Would it then be a blessing to give to 
every professing Christian health and wealth? If it 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


151 


would tend to make the recipients worse rather than bet- 
ter, it would not be a blessing. No progress can be made 
in the investigation of this question, till we have a clear 
conception of what a blessing is. If God gives a man 
what he desires, he calls it a blessing, but if he gives 
him what he does not desire, he does not call it a bless- 
ing, but perhaps an affliction. If we believe that God is 
good and wise, we must also believe that he thinks what- 
ever he gives to a man is good for him, indeed the best 
thing for him. If then that which God gives us does not 
seem to us to be good, it must be because we do not think 
as God thinks. The rich man received in this life the 
things he thought were good. He thought himself blessed, 
and so did all that knew him. Abraham said to him, 
“Thou receivedst thy good things,” the things that thou 
consideredst good. He does not say that the beggar re- 
ceived his evil things, but evil things, what the world 
calls evil things. But which of the two was, everything 
considered, the happier, the more blest ? The pleasures of 
the rich man were for but a season. They soon ended in 
torment. The beggar in his privation developed the 
grandest possible character, and in this life entered into 
the never ending but ever increasing joy. Every wise per- 
son would say that the life of the beggar is much to be 
preferred to that of the rich man. But could not the 
beggar have developed the same character if God had 
given him health and wealth? Who can answer that ques- 
tion ? It is certain, however, that Jesus regarded wealth 
as a hindrance to the development of Christian character. 
“How hardly shall they that have riches enter the king- 
dom of God.” The parable is in full accord with this. 
The beggar entered into the kingdom, the rich man did 
not. The reason for this is plain. The one who turns 
his attention to the gratification of fleshly desires will 


152 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


find that the desires increase constantly in advance of the 
possibility of gratification. As the body is weakened 
through indulgence or through age, it serves the soul less 
satisfactorily in its striving after pleasure. When such 
a soul is finally separated from the body it is without 
the means of any enjoyment. By attention to the develop- 
ment of the higher powers of the soul, which includes all 
intellectual and moral culture one will perceive a continu- 
ous increase of conceptions and ideas, of knowledge, an in- 
creasing sense of liberation from the sensual, a conscious- 
ness of growing strength, and an ever increasing joy in 
communing with God. It is the common belief that 
wealth tends rather to fleshly gratification than to spir- 
itual culture. When we consider these things the con- 
clusion thrusts itself upon us that the condition of the 
beggar was more helpful towards the development of the 
divine character than was that of the rich man. When 
we reach this conclusion, and reflect how much better it 
is to have the true character in harmony with God’s pur- 
pose, than to have all the wealth and fleshly enjoyment of 
the world, we are no longer disposed to ask why God per- 
mitted the beggar to remain in his privation, but rather 
why he gave the rich man the health and wealth that 
helped him to live in selfish enjoyment. This question is 
indeed as difficult to answer as the other. Notwithstand- 
ing the evident advantage of poverty in the struggle for 
a better and purer life, experience shows that very many 
poor people are selfish and carnal, while some rich people 
are comparatively unselfish and spiritual. The financial 
condition alone does not determine the spiritual condi- 
tion. Neither does the state of the health determine this. 
There are other factors. We may think it very probable 
that the beggar would not have been as good a man as he 
was, had he been well and rich; and we may think the 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


153 


rich man would have been better had he been poor and 
infirm, but we can confidently affirm neither. While no 
one would choose to be destitute, to be weak, to be sick, 
yet so long as sin is in the world it is necessary for some 
persons to be in these conditions, necessary indeed in two 
senses. Poverty and sickness are natural results of sin. 
They seem also necessary to the development of society. 
Let us try to imagine a community in which all are 
equally wealthy, healthy, wise and strong. Let their pos- 
sessions be great and their health perfect. There would 
be no little children in that assemblage, for we could not 
call it a community. Little children are weak, and there- 
fore could not be there. What would be in that assem- 
blage that would excite sympathy? What deed of kind- 
ness could be done? Who could show mercy? People 
so situated would probably be as indifferent towards 
each other as cattle in a good and ample pasture. An 
assemblage of destitute and sick persons could not exist. 
A community in which some are rich, some poor, some 
strong, some weak, some well, some sick, is suited to the 
development of every virtue. In a community of per- 
sons, who have overcome all wordly and fleshly desires, 
and are entirely free from the bondage of sin, whose joy 
and rejoicing is in the Lord, will certainly not need such 
incentives. Our conceptions of the activities of that life 
must be very imperfect, yet we cannot doubt that there 
will be opportunities for deeds of love and kindness. But 
the difficulty we find in the attempt to “justify the ways 
of God to men” arises from the fact that religious peo- 
ple are mostly striving after two objects. They wish to 
live the life of the rich man in this world, and to enjoy 
the blessedness of the beggar in the next world. For this 
reason the eye is not single and they are full of darkness. 
They who seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness; 


154 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


they who know that true happiness does not depend on 
the enjoyment of material things, but that the highest 
happiness consists in the enjoyment of God himself, will 
not be troubled by the ways of Providence. But to all 
others, to all who think that God can bless only by giv- 
ing material things to be enjoyed, the ways of God must 
seem very dark. 

To many the teaching, including the life of Jesus, has 
not been satisfactory. Some regret that they cannot see 
him as a father training children; or as a man of affairs 
earning a livelihood for himself and family. To see him 
laboring, buying and selling, and caring for a family, they 
think, would be a great help. It seems to them that there 
is a wide field into which Jesus did not come, so that it 
cannot be said that he entered fully into human life. 
Others think he did little or nothing to advance art, sci- 
ence, literature, to advance culture in general. His in- 
struction concerning state and church polity is thought 
to be meagre. So it would seem that there are many and 
important human interests which he scarcely touched. 
Here we must look closely and distinguish carefully. It 
is true that he did not teach the outward form of any- 
thing. He is called a carpenter. No doubt he worked 
as a carpenter with Joseph, his reputed father. If so, he 
used the tools, patterns and methods of his time. If he 
had given instructions in his own trade that would have 
been practical in that time, he must have given it on the 
basis of the tools and experience of the day. If he had 
recommended the best’ tools and method known today, his 
instruction would have been useless during the greater 
part of the past centuries, and would probably be anti- 
quated a hundred years hence. What is true of carpentry 
is true of everything else. Principles are eternal and un- 
changeable. Forms are or should be the expression of 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


155 


principles. But principles have not been fully compre- 
hended, and therefore have never been adequately ex- 
pressed. All forms have been at best approximations. 
These must therefore change till they become the realiza- 
tion, the embodiment of the principles. If Jesus had 
taught any forms he would have given the adequate ex- 
pressions of principles, for which humanity was not then, 
and is not now prepared. Moreover a form may be ob- 
served when the principle which the form should repre- 
sent is wholly lacking in the heart. The practice of forms 
under such circumstances is injurious. We see then that 
Jesus could teach only principles. He taught diligence, 
economy, circumspection, humility, mercy, meekness, jus- 
tice, truthfulness, wisdom, faith, hope, love. Where these 
are lacking there is nothing good. Without these there 
is no good government of state or church, no good society, 
no happy family, no good literature, no true culture. But 
where these are and abound everything will be found 
good. But he does not enjoin these virtues. He does not 
say thou shalt have faith, thou shalt have hope, thou shalt 
Jove. He does not command, but seeks to stimulate these 
virtues, and that in the most effective way. He tells of 
the goodness, the kindness, the mercy, the love of our 
heavenly Father. He tells of the seeking and the bring- 
ing home of the lost. 

There is then no lack or deficiency in the teaching of 
Jesus. He has not only taught us the way to the highest 
spiritual happiness, but also the principles on which the 
affoirs of this life must be conducted. It is not true that 
the teaching of Jesus is in any way a hindrance to ma- 
terial progress. It is not true that he spoke against the 
aggregation of wealth. Indeed the business of the world 
cannot be done without wealth. Jesus spoke against 
wealth held for selfish purposes, as he spoke against every 


156 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


form of selfishness. There might be all the railways, 
steamships, factories, in short, all the now existing utili- 
ties and a hundredfold more, if they were held and man- 
aged, not for selfish ends, but for the common good, for 
the benefit of all. It will be said that that is a wild 
dream; that these concerns must be operated for individ- 
ual gain, or they will not be operated at all. This state- 
ment brings us to the central question of Christianity. 
Can love to God become the one motive in the lives of 
men? If men cannot give up selfishness, if men cannot 
be actuated and guided by love to God and love to man, 
and by this alone, then God created this world in vain, 
and Jesus came, suffered and died in vain, for man cannot 
be saved from sin which is selfishness. What right has 
any man to say that God has undertaken that which he 
can not bring to a successful completion, and that his 
efforts are doomed to failure? It is true that the teach- 
ing of Jesus has been in a certain sense before the world 
for nearly two thousand years and selfishness has been 
only somewhat restricted. This fact does not promise 
success very soon. But it must be remembered that since 
the days of the apostles, the church in general has mis- 
understood its purpose. It has occupied itself chiefly 
in showing why and how God would overlook sin. It 
made no serious effort to eradicate sin. The church of- 
ficers of every rank carried on what they called church 
work in a very selfish way, so that the church manifested 
as much selfishness as any other organization. What the 
church might have accomplished in this time if it had pre- 
sented to the world the pure teaching of Jesus, if it had 
taught and practiced unselfishness, we can hardly imag- 
ine. The world’s work would be immeasurably better 
done, if every one did heartily as unto the Lord what- 
ever might be necessary to do. What is now done as 


TEACHING OF JESUS. 


157 


drudgery, would then be done with pleasure. Fraud- 
ulent and malicious acts would be heard of or read of 
only in the history of the past, and mistakes and acci- 
dents would become continually less frequent, and perhaps 
be entirely eliminated, for the intellect gradually freed 
from the darkening and corrupting influence of sin into 
the glorious light of God would bring forth better sci- 
ence, better philosophy, a higher and nobler literature 
than we can now conceive of. The human soul is capable 
of a much higher development than it has yet attained. 
Instead of thinking that the teaching of Jesus is inimical 
to art, literature and culture, we might and should see 
plainly that only through the teaching of Jesus can the 
highest production and appreciation of the true, the beau- 
tiful and the good be attained. Sin is a hindrance, nay 
it is destructive to every power of the soul. As Isaiah 
beheld the people of Judah, he said, “The whole head is 
sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot 
even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but 
wounds, and bruises, and festering sores; they have not 
been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with oil.” 
As the beggar’s body lay destitute, helpless and covered 
with sores, so to the eye of Jesus the whole world lay 
weakened, corrupted, made loathsome by sin. How in- 
expressibly miserable would have been the life of the beg- 
gar without faith in God! He had nothing with which 
to beguile himself for a moment into thinking he was 
happy, as the rich man could ^and did do. But how 
great a change was wrought in the beggar by faith in 
God! The old man with his sickness and loathsomeness 
was put off, and the new man fashioned in the strength 
and beauty of holiness and filled with incorruptible life 
was put on. If the beggar had had no faith he could 
not have been rescued even if the rich man had given him 


158 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

all his possessions. Nothing could have saved him out 
of his miserable condition except faith in God. So the 
world now overwhelmed in sin and wretchedness, can 
be rescued only through faith. When the souls of men 
are filled with faith, hope and love, then, and not till 
then, will they be delivered from all the evils of this 
world with their consequent grief and woe. 

Death of Jesus. 

“God sent his Son into the world that the world might 
be saved through him.” (John 3:16-19.) “The Word be- 
came flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14.) God sent 
his Son into the world in that he caused him to be born 
and to grow up through the stages of childhood into man- 
hood under the common conditions of human life. Hav- 
ing reached the age of manhood he entered into the affairs 
of this life. In all relations he was humble, gentle, kind 
and helpful. He was true to the will of his Father. This 
fidelity to his Father aroused the enmity of those who 
were estranged from God. As they were enemies to the 
will and purpose of God, they naturally became enemies 
to Jesus, and, as such men always seek to do with those 
whom they hate, they put Jesus to death. One may ask, 
what would have been the result, if the Jews had accepted 
the teaching and adopted the life of Jesus? The answer 
must be that they would not have put him to death, but 
would have loved him. There would have been no neces- 
sity for his death. The necessity for his death lay in 
two facts: 1. That God sent him into a sinful world, 
and 2. That the sinners to whom he came did not repent, 
but continued their sinful lives. The necessary enmity 
between sin and righteousness was the cause of his death. 

What then was the significance of his death ? He came 
with the message of God’s love, a message from the bosom 


DEATH OF JESUS. 


159 


of the Father to his wayward children. No angel could 
have brought this message, for no human words could 
express it. Only he who was in the bosom of the Father 
could express it in divine words and divine acts. In his 
life he showed men the Father and his love. Though being 
rich, he became poor, taking the form of a servant, being 
made in the likeness of man ; and being found in fashion 
as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even 
unto death, yea, the death of the cross. His death is the 
seal on his life’s mission and work. In his death he 
sealed to us the message of God’s love, his fidelity to God, 
and the truth of all his words. His death tells too, as 
no words could, of the power and cruelty of sin. His 
death proclaims and exalts love, purity and truth, and 
condemns every form of selfishness, of sin. Who can re- 
count the full significance of the death of Jesus? What 
a pity it has been so narrowed and obscured by the 
thought that it was the last of the bloody animal sacrifices 
which men supposed God had required! 

Resurrection. 

The apostles and evangelists preached everywhere and 
with one accord that Jesus had risen, that God had raised 
him from the dead. This preaching met with considerable 
opposition. Some of the Athenians mocked when Paul 
spoke of the resurrection, and even some of the church 
at Corinth said there was no resurrection. There is no 
doubt that Paul as well as the other apostles held that 
the bodily resurrection of Jesus and of his followers is a 
necessary doctrine, “If Christ hath not been raised, then 
is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.” (1 Cor. 
15:14.) Paul teaches that the dead shall be raised spirit- 
ual bodies and that the then living shall be changed 
in like manner. This change we cannot now compre- 
hend. 


160 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

It seems from the accounts of the appearing of Jesus 
after rising from the tomb, that his body was changed, 
for the closed door was no barrier to his entrance, and 
yet he could show the prints of the nails and the gash 
of the spear. 

It is said (for instance in Cremer’s Biblisch-theolog- 
isches Woerterbuch) that the Greek word for resurrection 
is used only in the passive sense in the New Testament. 
When Jesus said, “I am the resurrection,” he surely 
meant that he is the power that raises from the dead. If 
so, resurrection is here active. When Paul says, “I count 
all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge 
of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I suffered the loss of 
all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may 
gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteous- 
ness of my own, even that which is of the law, but that 
which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which 
is of God by faith ; that I may know him and the power 
of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, 
becoming conformed unto his death: if by any means I 
may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil. 
3:8-11.) He seems to use the word in both cases in the 
ethical or spiritual sense. The expression “power of his 
resurrection” can mean either the power whereby Jesus 
was raised, or the power whereby Jesus raises others. 
The latter is the more reasonable. His desire was that he 
might experience the resurrecting power of Jesus. Resur- 
rection would then be active in this case also. In the 
introduction to the letter to the Romans, Paul sa t ys of 
Jesus, “Who was born of the seed of David according 
to the flesh, who was defined to be the Son of God with 
power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrec- 
tion of the dead.” Here “by the resurrection of the dead” 
may mean by the fact that he was raised from the dead, 


RESURRECTION’. 


161 


or by the fact that he raises the dead. Now it is a fact 
that he rose from the tomb, and it is a fact that he 
raises the dead. The only question is, Which of these 
facts did Paul have in mind? The latter is no doubt the 
greater. The fact that Jesus raises the dead shows his 
sonship more fully than the fact that he rose from the 
tomb. Then this is in harmony with Paul’s statement: 
“ Jesus became a life-giving spirit.” (I Cor. 15 :45.) If he 
is a life-giving spirit, he raises the dead, he is the resur- 
rection in the active sense. 

Jesus said, “Whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall 
never die.” (John 11:26.) “We know that we have passed 
out of death into life, because we love the brethren.” 
(John 3:14.) Love to the brethren proves love to 
God. (1 John 4:19, 5:2.) and love to God implies 
love to Jesus and faith in him. They who believe 
in Jesus, not in the ordinary, superficial sense, but 
in reality (see Chapter on Faith, page 181), shall 
never die, they have passed out of death into life. 
Jesus has raised them from the dead. These are won- 
derful words, and to the carnal mind wholly unintel- 
ligible. But one thing is certain and well known, namely, 
that so far as any man has followed the words of Jesus, 
they have been found to be true. This fact justifies the 
belief that the words we have not yet tested by experi- 
ence will also be found to be true, that when we close our 
eyes and go hence, we shall find that the life which began 
in us when we became servants of Jesus, shall neither 
cease nor change in its direction, but only continue to 
become larger, brighter and more abundant in joy. The 
passing away of the true believer is something very dif- 
ferent from the death of the sinner, though to the carnal 
eye they seem to be the same. There is then a resurrec- 
tion that begins with faith in Jesus, and there is a resur- 


1G2 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

rection of the body, that is, the body will come forth a 
spiritual body. But to me these do not seem to be two 
resurrections, but two parts of the one resurrection. 

Let us examine the grounds for believing that Jesus 
rose from the tomb, and that we too shall rise out of the 
realm of death into an incorruptible life. Our resurrec- 
tion is inseparably connected with that of Jesus, and 
therefore they are considered here together. As has al- 
ready been said, those who were intimately acquainted 
with Jesus before his crucifixion and burial testify that 
they saw him alive and talked with him after the tomb 
had been found empty. The veracity of these persons 
cannot be questioned. The only ground on which this 
testimony can be set aside, is that it is not the testimony 
of these people, but is merely a tradition that gradually 
grew up. But why should one think it a myth, a mere 
tradition? The only reason for this is that the carnal 
mind cannot understand the resurrection. The carnal 
mind sees men die as animals die, and it says that is the 
end of existence. But we cannot trust the judgment 
of the carnal mind, for we know that there are noble 
and generous deeds which are utterly foreign to the car- 
nal mind. In literature we find the expressions of 
thoughts, emotions, longings, strivings, and hopes which 
the carnal mind cannot understand. We have spiritual 
joys into which the carnal mind does not and cannot en- 
ter. He who stops where the carnal mind bids him, never 
knows the best that is in life. In such a matter as the 
resurrection the judgment of the carnal mind is of no 
value. We know that there is a power that is not our- 
selves that makes for righteousness. If any one does not 
know this it is because he has not given attention. He 
may know it if he will. We know that there is a book 
that makes for righteousness. However much or little 


RESURRECTION. 


163 


one may know about the Bible, if one has lived in a civ- 
ilized country, one must know that the Bible makes for 
righteousness. In it are the seeds of the loftiest things 
in literature; in it are the impulses to the noblest deeds 
that have been done. Now this book that makes for right- 
eousness, says that the power making for righteous- 
ness, the existence of which we know, is Jesus, Jesus 
risen from the dead and glorified. His bodily form is 
gone from earth, yet as Spirit he is still seeking to save 
the lost, and so he comes and knocks at the door of every 
one this wide world over with the purpose of correcting, 
restraining, consoling, encouraging, or helping in every 
way indeed, in ways far beyond our comprehension, for 
they are ways of infinite wisdom and infinite love. With 
infinite patience he is laboring with every soul to free 
it from the bondage of sin, and to bring it into the glori- 
ous liberty of the children of God. He is striving to 
loose all from the realm of death, and to make them par- 
takers of his own life. He is not overlooking or excusing 
sin, nor is he doing anything to induce God to overlook 
or excuse sin. His work is to eradicate sin from the soul, 
to bring the soul into full harmony with God. Not an 
imputed salvation, but a real salvation will be the result 
of the efforts of Jesus. This labor of bringing souls 
into harmony with God is the atonement. Every one 
has felt the influence of Jesus,, but many are not con- 
scious of the fact. This is partly because of the deceit- 
fulness of sin in their own hearts, and partly because 
the church has taught them to expect a formal, a ficti- 
tious salvation. If a man does not know that Jesus has 
been laboring with him, he may testify to that fact, but 
this gives him no right to deny that Jesus rose from the 
tomb, and is now exercising the great moral force of the 
universe. The testimony of the man who has conscious- 


164 W1HAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

ly experienced the influence of Jesus in his life is of a 
very different character and value. Jesus said to the 
woman at the well, “Ye worship that which ye know not, 
we worship that which we know.” So the man who has 
experienced the resurrecting power of Jesus may say to 
the man who is not conscious of this power, You worship 
that which you do not know, and you do not know the 
hand that is striving to guide you; we worship that 
which we know, and we know by whom we are guided. 
The man who does not know Jesus or the power of his 
resurrection, might well give heed to the testimony of him 
who does know Jesus, but he is not dependent on such 
testimony. He may know for himself. “If any man will- 
eth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching whether 
it be of God.” So it is now and so it will always be. 
If a man has the will to comply with the will of God, 
he can and shall know that the teaching of Jesus is of 
God, and that he is the Savior of men. There is therefore 
no room for disputation with regard to the resurrection 
of Jesus. 

Judgment. 

What could be more impressive than the thought that 
we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat 
of Christ, that each one may receive the things done 
in the body, according to what he hath done, whether good 
or bad! (2 Cor. 5:10.) (See also Rom. 14:10.) “And I 
say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak 
they shall give an account thereof in the day of judg- 
ment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by 
thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Matt. 12:36-37.) 
“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest 
up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation 
of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to 
every man according to his works: to them that by pa- 


JUDGMENT. 


165 


tience in well doing seek for glory and honor and incor- 
ruption, eternal life; but unto them that are factious 
and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be 
wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon 
every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first and 
also of the Greek : but glory and honor and peace to every 
man that worketh good.” (Rom. 2:5-11.) The fullest de- 
scription of the judgment is that given in the 25th chap- 
ter of Matthew, beginning with the 31st verse. a But 
when the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the 
angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his 
glory : and before him shall be gathered all the nations : 
and he shall separate them one from another, as the shep- 
herd separates the sheep from the goats: and he shall 
set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand: 
Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
pared for you from the foundation of the world: for I 
was an hungered and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty 
and ye gave me drink : I was a stranger and ye took me 
in: naked and ye clothed me: I was sick and ye visited 
me: I was in prison and ye came unto me. Then shall 
the righteous answer him saying, Lord when saw we thee 
an hungered and fed thee ? or athirst and gave thee drink ? 
and when saw we thee a stranger and took thee in ? naked 
and clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick or in pris- 
on and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and 
say unto them, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye 
did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, 
ye did it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on 
the left hand, Depart from me ye accursed, into the eternal 
fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels : for I 
was an hungered and ye gave me no meat : I was thirsty 
and ye gave me no drink : I was a stranger and ye took 


166 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

me not in : naked and ye clothed me not : sick and in 
prison and ye visited me not. Then shall they also an- 
swer, saying, Lord when saw we thee an hungered or 
athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and 
did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them 
saying, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it 
not unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did 
it not unto me. And these shall go away into eternal 
punishment: but the righteous into eternal life ! ,? The 
good which the righteous did is here specified. They were 
kind to their fellow men. A few things connected with 
this description must be noted. Those on the right are 
not accepted because they were baptized, nor because they 
had professed faith in Christ. Not one of the things that 
have been placed at the doors of the various churches as 
conditions of admission is here mentioned. Not one of 
the things about which the various denominations have 
striven is named. Moreover there is perhaps not a de- 
nomination which would open its doors to persons for the 
reasons for which the King invited those on his right 
into the kingdom. We must however also note that those 
on the right had manifested the spirit of Jesus, his self- 
sacrificing love for man, which is the only profession of 
faith in Jesus that has any value before God. Jesus 
names only bodily conditions and acts, but it would be a 
great mistake to stop with these. Here as elsewhere he 
uses elementary things to indicate a principle. There 
are many who are spiritually naked and unfed, whose 
souls are sick and in prison. These too must be visited 
and cared for. 

But if the church has passed lightly over the conditions 
of admission into the kingdom, it has strongly emphasized 
the first part of the last sentence, viz.: “And these shall 
go away into eternal punishment.” The church has held 


JUDGMENT. 


167 


and taught with great energy that all who die in their 
sins, especially those who die outside of the church, must 
spend eternity in a place of torment; for there is no 
repentance, no conversion after death. This seems to be 
urged on utilitarian grounds, for the New Testament is 
also silent on this point. Its language is, “Behold now is 
the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation.” 
(2 Cor. 6:2.) This it continues to say to the man through- 
out his fourscore years if he lives so long. Is this voice 
not heard in the other world? A and B were friends and 
both rejected all the pleadings and arguments of the min- 
isters of the church for forty years, when A died. Five 
years later B professed conversion and took membership 
in a church. The church teaches that B is saved while A 
is lost. Perhaps the desire to bring people into church 
has had much to do with the formulation of this doctrine. 
If it were admitted that A might also be saved, others 
might be encouraged to remain out of the church; while 
it it is confidently affirmed that he is hopelessly lost 
people will be terrified from following his example. But 
a doctrine that may seem to commend itself for practical 
reasons may prove very injurious. As the church felt con- 
strained to teach that those who live outside of the church 
die without hope, so it has been disposed to affirm that 
its members are saved. But some church members are 
not distinguished for their goodness, and very few indeed 
have ever claimed to have reached perfection, and these 
for the most part fail to convince their neighbors of the 
truth of their claim. The church, generally speaking, 
will admit that its members are still to some degree sin- 
ful when they die. Now those who die sinful must re- 
main so throughout all eternity, if there is no repentance, 
no conversion in the other world, for one cannot become 
better without repenting, without being farther converted, 


168 


WIHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


unless one assumes that God frees the soul from all sinful 
tendencies at or soon after death. This is probably a 
widespread belief, though it is not very definitely stated. 
But if it is God’s purpose to free some souls of all taint 
of sin by a sovereign act without the concurrence of the 
soul, there is no apparent reason why he does not do so 
at birth, or when a person professes conversion. If every 
person were entirely sanctified on entering into the church 
the church would be in a much better condition. But the 
thought that God will at any time free the soul from sin 
by a sovereign act is contrary to analogy and reason, and 
without support from the Scriptures. By the doctrine 
that there is no repentance, conversion, nor betterment 
after death, the church is estopped from insisting on per- 
fect holiness. The church cannot say to men ye shall be 
perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect ; without per- 
fect holiness there is no perfect happiness, and salvation 
is not an accomplished fact so long as there is a remnant 
of sin in the heart. To say this would be to say that 
the great majority, at least, of the church members are 
not absolutely saved. The doctrine that there is no re- 
pentance after death has made necessary the teaching 
that God will be satisfied with a very moderate degree 
of holiness on the part of man, which is false, and has 
done and is doing the world great harm. True, there 
has been here and there a revolt against the doctrine of 
eternal damnation of the wficked. Sometimes the revolt 
takes the form of minimizing sin or even of denying its 
existence. Again, remembering the great love of God, 
some have thought that where sin abounds grace does 
much more abound; and that therefore all, the partially 
good and the partially bad, are admitted into heaven on 
equal terms. It is difficult to see how one can deny the 
existence of sin, or even count it a light matter. One 


JUDGMENT. 


169 


must see in this position a desperate attempt to escape 
from a conclusion which was utterly repugnant to man’s 
reason and best feelings. If a man finds himself bound 
to accept one of two conclusions, either that there is no 
such thing as sin, or that God, who is said to be love, 
brought countless millions into existence, who, as he well 
knew, must spend eternity in misery, is it surprising that 
he prefers to think that there is no sin? But we have 
not to do with the philosophies of men, but with the 
teaching of the Bible. According to this, sin exists and 
is hateful to God, and it is said that the wicked go away 
into punishment. What is punishment? 

Punishment is pain inflicted for any one or more of 
three reasons. 1. For the betterment of the person pun- 
ished. 2. To deter the person or others from doing a 
deed like the one for which the punishment is inflicted. 
3. For the gratification of the person offended. Punish- 
ment with a view to the betterment of the person is cor- 
rection, and punishment for the gratification of the of- 
fended is retaliation, or at least belongs to that class. 
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is retaliation, 
and was once permitted on account of the hardness of the 
hearts of the people. “Ye have heard that it was said 
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth : but I say unto 
you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth 
thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also. And 
if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy 
coat let him have thy cloak also.” “Ye have heard that 
it was said, thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine 
enemy; but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray 
for them that persecute you : that ye may be sons of your 
Father who is in heaven.” Jesus, who taught thus, can- 
not retaliate. All the pain inflicted by the Lord must 
be for the benefit of the person punished, or for the benefit 


170 


WIHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


of society, or for the benefit of both. All God’s acts are 
acts of benefit, acts of mercy, whether they are what we 
usually call by that name, or acts of seeming severity. 
“God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
but have eternal life. For God sent not his Son into the 
world to judge the world, but that the world should be 
saved through him.” (John 3:16.) Since God gave his Son, 
no one should doubt that God has done, is doing and will 
do all he can to save mankind from sin. This conviction 
ought to be sufficient for us. We need not try to know 
all the ways in which God seeks to correct, to elevate and 
purify the lives of men. God’s wisdom in this exceeds our 
understanding as much as in every other thing. It may 
however seem that, if sin bring suffering and ultimate de- 
struction, there is neither room nor reason for direct 
divine punishment. But we know that a father who sees 
his son entering on a course which will certainly lead to 
misery, would inflict any pain upon him that would bring 
him back to a pure and useful life. If we understand 
that God punishes us only to rescue us from the dire con- 
sequences of sin, we need not discuss his ways and means 
of punishing. 

The word translated punishment in the New Testament 
means correction and should be translated so. For all 
the pain and punishment inflicted by the Lord is for cor- 
rection. It is therefore not final but only a means to an 
end. This view enables us to understand the following 
passages which indicate the final success of the divine 
labor in rescuing the fallen and the lost. “As I live, 
saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, and every 
tongue give praise.” (Kom. 14:11.) “Which he purposed 
in him unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, 
to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens 


JUDGMENT. 


171 


and the things on the earth.” (Eph. 1 :10.) “For it was 
the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the 
fulness dwell: And through him to reconcile all things 
unto himself, having made peace through the blood of 
his cross, through him I say, whether things upon the 
earth or things in the heavens” (Col. 1:19-20.) “And I 
saw in the midst of the throne and in the midst of the 
four living creatures, and in the midst of the 
elders, a lamb standing, as though it had been 
slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which 
are the seven spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. 
And he came and taketh it out of the right hand of him 
that sat upon the throne, and when he had taken the 
book the four living creatures and the four and twenty 
elders fell down before the lamb, having each one a harp 
and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers 
of the saints. And they sing a new song, saying worthy 
art thou to take the book and to open the seals thereof : 
for thou wast slain and didst purchase unto God with 
thy blood men of every tribe, tongue and people, and 
nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom 
and priests; and they reign upon the earth. And I saw 
and heard a voice of many angels round about the throne 
and the living creatures and the elders, and the number 
of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thou- 
sands of thousands, saying with a great voice, Worthy is 
the lamb that hath been slain to receive the power and 
the riches, and the wisdom and the might, and honor, and 
glory and blessing. And every created thing which is 
in the heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and 
on the sea and all the things which are in them, heard I 
saying, Unto him that sitteth on the throne and unto 
the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory, 
and the dominion, for ever and ever.” (Rev. 5:6-13.) These 


172 


WJHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


passages really need but little comment. The passage from 
Romans usually reads, “and every tongue shall confess.” 
From this is extracted the thought that at some time 
every one will bow in submission to God and confess 
that he is right and just, but still God will not release 
them from their torment. If every being finally praises 
God, it will be because all have been brought to see the 
goodness of God. But could the human mind regard 
God as good if he should punish relentlessly the majority 
of his creatures after they had repented? What good 
purpose could be served by so doing? But if our former 
conclusion is correct, namely that evil doing brings mis- 
ery, while holiness is always accompanied by happiness, 
the conception that the penitent person in the other world 
continues to suffer becomes impossible, for as they turn, 
here or hereafter, from their sins and become perfectly 
submissive to God, their suffering vanishes with their 
sin and joy comes with their righteousness. It might be a 
question whether hardened sinners can repent in the next 
world, but this passage not only says that they can but 
that they will certainly do so. If God brings sinners 
to repent and praise him, he will accept them. This is the 
glorious liberty of the sons of God, which is freedom from 
every evil desire, the state in which every impulse is in 
harmony with the will of God. We shall then bow in 
admiration before the wisdom and the justice of the 
Father of lights, and with grateful hearts praise the 
infinite graces of his Son our blessed Savior. 

If the sinful tendencies of the soul could be removed 
by creating a new heart in the man, somewhat as a man 
might take a bad piece out of a machine and put a good 
piece in its place, the task would simply be one of cre- 
ative power. But this could not be done without inter- 
rupting the continuity of the souks existence, that is, 


JUDGMENT. 


173 


destroying its identity. If a creative act were all that 
is needed, why could not the Word have performed it 
without becoming flesh? But his work has no similarity 
to mechanical repairing, but to education. It is a work 
of correcting and developing the powers of the soul. 
When we think of the selfishness of mankind, the eager- 
ness for gratification of every desire, it seems impossible 
for Jesus to bring all to a holy life, to be like himself. 
For this very reason this work will be the wonder and 
admiration of all created intelligences. 

But we must not forget the passages that seem to 
teach that not only the fallen spirits but indeed the 
majority of our race will be lost. First we will look at 
the passages that are thought to teach that the wicked 
spirits are doomed to eternal misery. “For if God spared 
not the angels when they sinned, but cast them down to 
hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be re- 
served unto judgment : and spared not the ancient world, 
but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of 
righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world 
of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and 
Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, 
having made them an example unto those that would live 
ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:4-6.) 

“And angels which kept not their own principality, but 
left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting 
bonds under the darkness unto the judgment of the great 
day.” (Jude 6.) 

“For if God spared not the angels” indicates that the 
sparing of angels is a thing in itself more probable than 
the sparing of men. Peter seems to class those who per- 
ished in the days of Noah with the sinning angels, yet 
in his first letter he says that Jesus went in spirit and 
preached to the spirits of these same persons. If so, he 


174 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


certainly bore to them a message of mercy and love. 
The angels were committed to pits of darkness to be re- 
served unto judgment. Both Peter and Jude seem to 
class the people of Sodom and Gomorrah with them, 
and Jesus says that it will be more tolerable for Sodom 
in the day of judgment than for Capernaum. Was Jeru- 
salem better than Capernaum? If Sodom is in like con- 
demnation with the fallen angels, and Capernaum and 
perhaps other cities are in a worse state, how can it be 
said that the spirits that sinned are held as prisoners 
without hope, while man is the recipient of God’s mer- 
cy? The sentence God is love ought to banish from the 
minds of all the thought that God could assign to eternal 
misery any fallen creature without any effort to save. 
There is no passage of Scripture that indicates that he 
has done so. 

We will now see what is said with regard to sinful 
man. “Enter ye in by the narrow gate : for wide is the 
gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, 
and many be those entering in thereby.” (Matt. 5:13.) 
This passage is thought to teach that few will be 
saved. The narrow way that leads to life is self- 
denial, and the broad way that leads to destruction 
is self-indulgence, self -gratification. Jesus stated the 
fact as it was then. The great majority were on 
the broad road of self-indulgence. We will hope that 
there has been some improvement since then, but 
still today the majority are on the same broad road. 
But the man who is on the way to destruction to- 
day may turn tomorrow. Paul was once on the way to 
destruction. Who can say that he was never on that 
road? Will all turn from the broad road and walk in 
the narrow way? We may hope so, for we have the sure 
word of God that to him every knee shall bow and every 


REPENTANCE. 


175 


tongue give praise. But to return to the judgment scene. 
“These shall go away into eternal punishment,” or more 
properly, into eternal correction. This is correction that 
will never cease so long as there is anything to correct. 
If any one feels compelled to think that after all the ef- 
forts of Jesus, some will remain bad, he will lack con- 
fidence in the power and wisdom of Jesus, but his view 
may not be otherwise immoral. It is immoral, however, 
to say that God does or will overlook sin, that is, that he 
will take sinners into his society and allow them to remain 
sinners. It is immoral to teach that God will at some 
time eradicate all evil desires, and equally suddenly im- 
plant good impulses. Moral is the doctrine that God re- 
quires perfection, and is seeking in every way consistent 
with man’s nature to bring the whole human race into 
the likeness of his Son, our Savior. If God is laboring 
to this glorious end we should believe and hope that he 
will succeed, and should love him for his grace. Our hope 
is in the final triumph of God’s wisdom and love over all 
selfishness. “Unto him that sitteth on the throne and 
unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the 
dominion, for ever and ever.” 

Repentance. 

The substance of John’s preaching was, “Repent ye, for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” As John used the 
Aramaic and not the Greek language, he probably said, 
“Turn ye” as did the prophets before him. Ezek. 14:6. 
The Hebrew conception was that sinners are turned away, 
gone away from God. The Jews had the Mosaic law, and 
were therefore in position to know whether their lives 
were in harmony with or contrary to the will of God. 
All the inhabitants of Judea seem to have believed John 
as to the approaching kingdom, but many did not believe 
him with regard to the necessity of turning. Many of the 


176 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

Pharisees, we learn, felt no need of any change. This 
was not because they had no sense of right, or no desire 
to be right or no means of knowing what was right. They 
had all these. But by perverted thinking they had 
reached the conclusion that they were already right. 
They were willing to bathe themselves and wash their 
clothes, and thus to prepare themselves outwardly for 
the kingdom. But they saw no necessity for changing 
their lives. They were practically very nearly in the same 
conditions as persons who had, by whatever means, lost 
their sense of right. A man without moral sense would 
be controlled by outward circumstances, or by his cap- 
rices. To urge such a one to turn from his sins unto 
righteousness would be as useless as to admonish a horse 
in like manner. If God then calls upon a man to turn 
from his present course of life, it is because he knows 
that the man has a sense of right which is not satisfied 
with his life. Jesus came not to call the righteous but 
sinners, those who knew themselves to be sinners. This 
must have been the case with men very generally in the 
time of Paul, for he says, “But now God commandeth 
men that they should all everywhere repent.” (Acts 
17 :30.) The word that Paul here uses is somewhat differ- 
ent in meaning from the word used by John. It may mean 
to think after, that is, after having done an act to think 
about it. It may also mean to change one’s mind either 
with regard to some particular thing, or about things in 
general. As a change of mind indicates dissatisfaction 
with the former state or direction of the mind, it easily 
came to mean to regret, to be sorry for something done. 
From these three meanings it is not difficult to choose 
the one had in mind by the New Testament writers. God 
could not command men to act first and to think after- 


REPENTAN’CE. 


177 


ward, nor does he desire to see sorrowful people. He 
desires to see people in their right mind and happy. 

“When Gentiles who have no law do by nature the 
things of the law, these having no law, are a law unto 
themselves; in that they show the work of the law writ- 
ten in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness there- 
with, and their thoughts one with another accusing or 
else excusing them.” (Rom. 2:16.) Paul here states the 
well known fact that Gentiles, to whom God gave no 
written law, often acted in harmony with the principles 
of the Mosaic law. They w T ere often hospitable to stran- 
gers, kind and helpful to the needy, were sometimes up- 
right and truthful. They also made laws for themselves 
in which they encouraged the good and censured the evil. 
This fact he explains by saying that “the work of the 
law T was written in their hearts.” For the various shades 
of meaning that have been found in this passage one must 
see the commentaries. We need not make a careful an- 
alysis of this to determine its full and exact meaning, 
for what everyone will readily concede is sufficient for our 
present purpose. That is, that at least some of the prin- 
ciples of the Mosaic law are engraven on the hearts or 
minds of the heathen, and that therewith is a feeling of 
obligation to do what the heart or mind recognizes to be 
right. The word “written” or better engraven w^as chosen 
because the Jews had a law written or engraven on stone. 
But by “engraven” we must understand that these prin- 
ciples enter into the constitution of the mind or heart. 
If this be true it must also be universal. It cannot be 
that these principles are found in the constitution of 
some minds and not in that of others. If the w r ork of 
the law is engraven in the hearts of some Gentiles, it 
must be in the hearts of all Gentiles and of all Jews as 
well. It is for this reason that the mind of man assents 


178 


WIHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


to the law that it is good. (Rom. 7.) The feeling of obliga- 
tion to do the right Paul calls the conscience, and so it 
has been called to this day. It is said that Jesus did not 
speak of the conscience. By that name he certainly did 
not. The Hebrews had no distinctive word for it, but 
simply placed it in the heart along with knowledge, wis- 
dom, prudence, etc. After David had cut off the skirt of 
Saul’s robe, he reflected on what he had done and his 
heart smote him. We should say his conscience smote 
him. John uses heart in the same way. “If our heart 
condemn us not we have boldness towards God.” (1 John 
3:21.) But if our heart condemn us, we may be sure that 
God sees our faults more clearly than does our heart. 
Jesus speaks of the same thing without using a specific 
name. “If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, 
and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught 
against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go 
thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then 
come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary 
quickly, whiles thou art in the way, lest haply the adver- 
sary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee 
to the officer, and thgu be cast into prison.” (Matt. 5:23- 
26.) It is assumed that the man remembers that his 
brother has just cause of complaint. When he remem- 
bers this his conscience becomes his adversary, and will 
not cease to accuse him. It cannot be silenced till jus- 
tice is done. If a man will not make peace with his con- 
science he will be delivered to the judge, and will finally 
be cast into prison. When Jesus speaks of hardness, or 
grossness of heart, he means the same thing that Paul 
had in mind when he spoke of conscience seared as with 
a hot iron. 

With increate conscience and principles of the law 
man might have been expected to grow constantly in the 


REPENTANCE. 


179 


grace and the knowledge of God, but he did not do so. He 
turned away from God and these inc reate powers of the 
soul became weakened and darkened. “In the pure all 
things are pure; but in them that are defiled and unbe- 
lieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and con- 
science are defiled.” (Tit. 1:15.) We readily accept the 
statement that all the soul powers of the pure man are 
pure, but it does not so readily occur to us that if a man 
is defiled in any respect, his mind and conscience, all his 
soul powders share in the defilement. The downward 
course of man in his sin is plainly given in Romans 1 :18- 
32. From this we see that the deeper a man falls into 
sin the more difficult it is to rescue him, for his con- 
science is so weakened that its voice is scarcely heard. 
If a man should sin till his conscience, his sense of right 
were entirely gone, there would be nothing in him to 
which one could appeal. Why urge a man to do right if 
he does not know what is right? How could he be taught 
what is right, if he has no sense of right? As well try to 
teach the color-blind with regard to color. But we have 
already seen that God has issued a call to all men every- 
where that they should change their minds. The change 
that is meant is that they should no longer think and 
act contrary to conscience, but in harmony with it. 
Think, purpose, do what you recognize to be right. This 
is not to be limited in any way. Very often, if repent- 
ance is thought of at all as change of mind, it is urged 
as change of mind with regard to Jesus. If the change 
is from infidelity to true faith in Jesus (see Chapter on 
Faith, p. 181) the gain will be beyond computation. But il 
the change is from rejecting to accepting the proposition 
that Jesus is divine, it may have no moral value at all. 
The direction of the mind must be changed. It must be 
turned away from self and the world toward God. In 


180 W[HAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

the smallest as well as in the greatest matters of daily 
life one must cease to think and act selfishly, and learn 
to do everything heartily as unto the Lord. Many imagine 
that in uniting with some church they have forsaken the 
world, while in reality they have carried the world and all 
their selfishness with them into the organization they call 
the church. In such cases there has been no change of 
mind. 

Generally repentance is thought to be sorrow for past 
sins. When one has begun to think and act according 
to conscience, one may be sorry that this had not been 
commenced sooner, that so much time and energy had 
been wasted in vain thinking and foolish conduct, but 
one must necessarily rejoice over the new life. It is a 
great mistake to put emphasis on sorrow for the past. 
The essential thing is that God’s purpose in creating us 
shall be realized in our lives. To do this the increate 
principles of our minds must become dominant. But our 
minds and consciences have been so defiled and weakened, 
that they need to be reinvigorated. This the law may do, 
especially the law completed and interpreted by our Sa- 
vior in his words and in his life. Herein we have very 
great help indeed, but so sorely have we been blinded, 
corrupted and weakened that we need more. We need 
the personal aid and attention of the great healer of souls. 
His Spirit must enlighten the mind and cleanse the con- 
science. Therefore the belief in the divinity of our Savior 
is of value. Since it not only enables us but encourages, 
us to put our confidence more fully in him. But our con- 
fidence must be that he can and will help us to change 
our minds from selfishness unto God. This is what is 
meant by repentance toward God. But if our confidence 
in him is that he has devised or will devise means of hav- 


FAITH. 


181 


ing our sins excused, so that we may remain in selfish- 
ness, and not change our minds towards God, then our 
faith in him is an injury. The change of mind from sel- 
fishness unto God is absolutely necessary, and can be at- 
tained only in and through Jesus. 

Faith. 

Faith is not so easily defined as repentance. We have 
one verb, believe, and two nouns, belief and faith. To 
believe a statement is to assent to the truth of it. Fre- 
quently one distinguishes between believing and knowing. 
To the question, Do you believe that A did that? the 
answer may often be heard : I do not believe it, I know it. 
In the minds of people generally, belief is something less 
than knowledge. It is sometimes said that belief begins 
where knowledge ends, and continues to the point where 
the mind is nearly or quite balanced between two opin- 
ions, which is the state of doubt, which again extends to 
where the mind rejects or fully dissents. Hence we have 
the order : knowing, faith or belief, doubt, dissent or de- 
nial ; that is, I know, I believe, I doubt, I deny. Of course, 
the lines separating these different states cannot be 
sharply drawn, especially between belief and doubt, and 
doubt and dissent. If we make belief to stop where the 
least questioning or hesitation begins, then the field of 
doubt is very wide. Who then is not a doubter, at least 
at times? 

Another question seems worthy of consideration. Does 
the character or value of belief depend in any way on its 
origin? Men once believed as firmly that the earth was 
flat as they now do that it is round. In the one case they 
accepted what appearance indicated, in the other they 
accept the result of careful investigation. In each case 
evidence or something that is taken for evidence is ac- 
cepted. Rain falls and therefore dew must fall also, may 


182 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

pass for correct reasoning, and a man may have as little 
doubt about the falling of the dew as he has with re- 
gard to the falling of the rain. The boy who accepts the 
religion of his parents without any questioning will never 
be troubled with doubts, but the boy who is led by any 
means to investigate for himself, will probably sometimes 
have doubts. An unreasoning and unintelligent accept 
ance of a statement or doctrine seems often to be regarded 
by Christians as the strongest faith. Among men of sci- 
ence such acceptance is not considered very praiseworthy. 
As scientists are led to regard faith as presented by the 
church to be the acceptance and holding of that which 
one does not know to be true, not only without investiga- 
tion, but even against investigation, they often think that 
not only the church but Christianity itself is opposed to 
light and intelligence. To them faith is credulity and 
bigotry. 

Every one must observe at first glance that a very dif- 
ferent estimate is put upon faith in the New Testament, 
for in it faith is represented as being of the highest value, 
and a man of faith as a prince among men. With many 
Christians faith is the full and complete acceptance of 
the proposition that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the 
living God. What difference does it make whether a 
man accepts this or not? One might think that the man 
who accepts or thinks he accepts what the New Testa- 
ment says about Jesus, would be a good and useful cit- 
izen. But this is by no means the case. Some believers 
in the divinity of Jesus are very immoral, while some 
infidels seem to lead correct lives. If all believers in the 
divinity of Jesus were good, moral people, there would 
be no question as to the ethical value of belief in the divin- 
ity of Jesus. But if it is true that the line separating 


FAITH. 


183 


believers from unbelievers is not the same as the line sep- 
arating the good and the bad, inasmuch as we find both 
good and bad among believers and good and bad among 
unbelievers, the question as to the ethical value of belief 
in the divinity of Jesus is pertinent. 

If faith is the acceptance of the proposition that Jesus 
is divine, and if this acceptance does not necessarily 
make the man any better, why is faith valued so highly 
in the New Testament? Perhaps the ethical value of 
faith is frequently not thought of. Perhaps it is thought 
to have what one might rather call a commercial value, 
that is, that God blesses a man in consideration of the 
fact that he believes in the divinity of his Son. But why 
should God make any return for such an attitude toward 
Jesus? If faith were in every case a personal acquisition, 
if it were always the result of a critical examination, 
there might seem to be some reason for offering a reward 
for it. But it is clear that in many cases belief in the 
divinity of Jesus is quite accidental. If a child is born 
into a Smith family, its name with be Smith, and if this 
particular family of Smiths are all firm believers, the 
new-born member will be, at least for a time, a believer, 
and that too with as little mental effort as it learns to 
recognize its name. It would be difficult to see on what 
this commercial value of faith could be founded. If what 
we commonly call faith has no certain ethical value, and 
we cannot see why God should give a reward for it, and 
yet the New Testament sets a high value upon what it 
calls faith, we are forced to the conclusion that what is 
commonly called faith is not what the New Testament 
means by faith. It is frequently said that the New Tes- 
tament does not define faith. At first thought that might 
seem strange, as faith is very important, and yet a thing 
about which one might be mistaken. The statement may 


184 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

not be correct. Enough examples may furnish a better 
definition than could be given abstractly in words. 
Then there are those who believe that the first verse of the 
eleventh chapter of Hebrews is a definition of faith. 
Chief among these is Dr. J. T. Beck. This verse is vari- 
ously translated. King James’ Version has it: “Now 
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of 
things not seen.” What was meant by “substance of things 
hoped for” is not quite clear, but it may readily be as- 
sumed that it was made to harmonize with the second 
member, “the evidence of things not seen.” This seems 
to mean that the evidence we have of the existence of 
things unseen is that we believe they exist. A believer 
in ghosts has the same kind of evidence for the existence 
of ghosts. He believes they exist and therefore they are 
real to him. If our think-so is the only foundation for 
things unseen, then our heaven may w T ell be a dream, and 
the only difference between us and the believers of the 
various ancient and modern mythologies is a difference of 
fancy. We may have a nobler fancy than they, but still 
it may only be a product of the imagination. It does not 
seem probable that any Christian would write thus about 
the Christian Religion. In the Revised Version this verse 
reads: “Now faith is the assurance of (the giving sub- 
stance to) things hoped for, the proving (testing) of 
things not seen.” The first member seems to say that the 
assurance we have with regard to the things hoped for is 
that we believe thus and so about them. But what does 
the second member mean? Certainly the statement that 
faith is the proving of things not seen cannot be clear to 
everyone. If proving means proof, then we go back to the 
thought expressed in King James’ Version. If it means 
subjecting to a test, then some kind of experimentation is 
suggested without indicating how or by whom the experi- 


FAITH. 


185 


ments are carried on. There is another translation that 
has been thought possible. This would read : Now faith 
is a foundation (consisting) of the things hoped for, a 
correction (administered) by the unseen. The word 
translated substance in the one version and assurance in 
the other, means really that which stands under, hence 
foundation, inner being or essence. 

It is not said that it may not be translated by substance 
or assurance. Substance is the inner being, and assurance 
is that which makes firm or secure, and this idea of firm- 
ness and security is derived from the conception of a 
foundation. By foundation of a house we understand 
that on which the house stands; by foundation of stone, 
we do not understand that on which the stones lie, but 
that the stones are so placed that they constitute a foun- 
dation on which something else may stand. When we 
read “foundation of things hoped for,” it is possible to 
understand that upon which the things hoped for rest, 
or that the things hoped for constitute a foundation on 
which something does or may rest. Let us assume for the 
moment that it is here a question of that on which the 
man’s life rests. It is then implied that the things hoped 
for may constitute a basis of human life. By “the things 
hoped for” we must understand the hopes awakened in us 
by the promises of God and by his dealing with us. The 
first member of the statement with regard to faith would 
then mean that the man who makes the promises of God 
the basis of his life, has so far faith. But life is not 
fixed and stable; it is a progression and therefore needs 
constant direction and correction, and so the second mem- 
ber is added : a correction by the unseen. 

It must be remembered that the writer needed a very 
comprehensive statement as he was about to consider a 
long line of individuals, some of whom had no written 


186 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


word of God. Therefore he names the promises of God, 
“the things hoped for,” and the providence of God, “the 
unseen.” It is the unseen hand of God directing and 
correcting. The man who makes the promises of God 
the basis of his life and activity, and who is constantly 
being corrected by the providence of God is a man of 
faith. 

There are several reasons for accepting this translation 
and interpretation of the passage. First: it is in har- 
mony with the examples and remarks contained in the 
chapter. The one coming to God must believe that he is 
a rewarder of them that seek him. Sarah counted him 
faithful who had promised. These all died along the road 
of faith, “not having received the things promised, but 
having seen them and greeted them from afar, and hav- 
ing confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on 
the earth. For they that say such things make it mani- 
fest that they are seeking after a country of their own. 
And if indeed they had been mindful of that country from 
which they went out, they would have had opportunity to 
return. But now they desire a better country, that is a 
heavenly.” Moses chose rather to be evil entreated with 
the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a 
season : accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches 
than the treasury of Egypt : for he looked unto the recom- 
pense of reward, “My son, regard not lightly the chast- 
ening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art reproved of 
him : for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourg- 
eth every son whom he receiveth.” These passages are all 
in line with the translation given above. It is in harmony 
with the declaration of Jesus: “Man shall not live by 
bread alone, but on every word that proceedeth out of the 
mouth of God.” Not bread in its broadest sense is the 
true basis of human life, but the word of God. Then faith 


FAITH. 


187 


in this sense has ethical value. The man who makes the 
promises of God the foundation of his life and is being 
corrected by the providence of God cannot be a bad man : 
he is a good citizen, a good man. The farther a man is 
removed from this attitude towards God the worse he is. 
Here is the dividing line between the good and the bad. 

Everyone having this faith will be saved, and no one 
can be saved without it. This definition of faith satisfies 
every demand of the New Testament and of the Christian 
consciousness. It is true there is more in it than is usual- 
ly comprehended under the term faith. Firm trust in 
God’s promises would generally be recognized as faith. 
Here more is required. The man must not only fully rely 
on God’s promises, but must also be teachable. He must 
allow himself to be corrected. Too often the opposite of 
this passes for faith. The man who tenaciously clings 
to the old and stubbornly rejects everything new will 
probably consider himself and be considered by others a 
man of strong faith. 

A corroboration of this view of Hebrews 11 :1 is found 
in the words of our Savior. “How can ye believe, which 
receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor 
that cometh from God only? Think not that I will 
accuse you to the Father : there is one that accuseth you, 
even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses 
ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if 
ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my 
words?” (John 5:44-46.) The Jews not only believed 
that the writings of Moses were true, but they also trusted 
in Moses. Nevertheless, Jesus says they did not believe 
Moses, for that is clearly implied in the statement, ‘‘if 
ye believed Moses, ye would believe me.” The meaning 
must be, if they had entered into the spirit of the teaching 


188 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

of Moses, so that they would have become like Moses in 
thought and life, they would have in like manner entered 
into the spirit of the teaching of Jesus and would have 
been transformed thereby into his likeness. From this 
we see that one may accept as true every word that Jesus 
spoke and may trust him as Savior, and still not believe 
him or believe in him. 

Jesus recognizes as believers only those who are being 
transformed into his likeness. As strange as this may 
seem, by reflecting we can see that this is not only reason- 
able, but necessary. The fact is before us that the Jews 
accepted as true what Moses wrote and trusted in him, 
yet this did not bring them into sympathy with Jesus. 
Jesus said of them that they did not believe Moses. Tt 
is a fact that many persons accept as true what Jesus 
taught and trust him as Savior, who in their sordid sel- 
fishness do not even think seriously of being transformed 
into the likeness of Jesus. Jesus must say to these, I 
never knew you; that is, I never recognized you as be- 
lievers. We see then that to allow ourselves to be cor- 
rected by the divine influence, to seek to be transformed 
by the life and teaching of Jesus is a very essential part 
of faith. Faith accordingly takes up and carries on that 
which was begun under the name of repentance, or change 
of mind. As we have seen, the general proclamation to 
man is to change his mind (Luke 24:47, Acts 17:30, 26:20 
et al.). But when the jailor asked what he should do to 
be saved, the answer w T as Believe on the Lord Jesus. 
(Acts 16:31.) Paul and Silas did not mean by this an 
abstract assent to his divinity, but such devotion to him 
as would transform his life into the likeness of Jesus. 
Repentance, or change of mind towards God, would mean 
the same thing, for Jesus is the revelation of God, and an 
entering into the life of Jesus is a change of mind to- 


FAITH. 


189 


wards God. But while in the definition of faith in He- 
brews 11:1 and of the word believe in John 5:46, there 
is indicated a change of mind and life towards the divine 
will, yet we sometimes find both repentance and faith 
enjoined. “Repent ye (change your minds) and believe 
in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15.) “Testifying both to Jews 
and to Greeks, repentance towards God and faith in our 
Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21.) These are more ex- 
plicit statements for the sake of emphasis, as we have 
the two petitions, “Thy kingdom come,” and “Thy will be 
done.” These mean the same. In the kingdom of God, 
the will of God is done, and where the will of God is done, 
there is the kingdom of God, though it be in the heart of 
but one man. Change of mind toward God would ulti- 
mately produce perfect Christian character. Faith in 
Jesus, or belief in Jesus, must ultimately produce just the 
same character. The first act of reformation on the part 
of one greatly estranged from God is repentance or change 
of mind, but in the case of those who have entered upon 
the spiritual life, repentance and faith are for the most 
part names for different phases of the same thing. In- 
deed, all that is needed in man’s case is to change from his 
selfishness, his enmity towards God, to loving harmony 
with Him. This is all that man can do, and that is what 
man must do. It is not meant that man can do this alone, 
but the help of God is sure, if man will only have the 
desire and make the effort. 

“For this is the will of my Father that every one that 
heholdeth the Son , and lelieveth on him , should have 
eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day.” 
(John 6:40.) 

“ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Hood hath 
eternal life / and I will raise him up at the last day.” 
(Ibid. 54.) 


190 


WIHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


A comparison of these two passages shows that to be- 
hold the Son and believe on him is the same as to eat 
his ffesh and drink his blood, for the results are the same. 
The beholding and believing result in eternal life and 
final resurrection, and so do the eating and drinking. It 
is sometimes said that the first passage explains the 
second. But since eating and drinking are physical acts, 
they must explain believing which is not physical. Jesus 
says to us, that if we would believe on him according to 
his conception of faith, we must make him our nourish- 
ment, our sustenance. We must appropriate the princi- 
ples of his life so that his life will become our life. Hence 
he says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
abideth in me and I in him.” He who is not striving to 
make the life of Jesus his life, does not believe on Jesus. 

The substitution of an intellectual assent, or of a mere 
think-so for the true conception of faith has done still 
more harm than the error with regard to repentance. 

Church. 

If it were possible to get a full and clear conception of 
what our Savior and his apostles meant by “church” 
many difficulties would be removed from the theological 
world. The following statement of the New Testament 
use of the word is generally accepted: “In the New' 
Testament the original word is ekklesia, which means an 
assembly, either secular or religious, (Acts 19:32), etc. 
It is applied either to the whole body of the believers in 
Christ, the church universal (Matt. 16:17, Eph. 1:22), or 
to the congregation in a local sense, as “The Church at 
Antioch” (Acts 17 :1) at Jerusalem (Acts 15:4), etc. The 
original word is only used twice in the Gospels, each time 
by Matthew, 16 :18, where it means the church universal ; 
18 :17, where it means a local congregation. The Evange- 


CHURCH. 


191 


lists usually employ the term, “the kingdom of God” or 
“the kingdom of heaven,” for the spiritual substance of 
the Church universal.” — Shaft Bible Diet. 

Hatch and many others thought that the Greeks used 
the word ekklesia to designate a meeting of a society, as 
well as a popular assembly. Taking this view of the use 
of ekklesia as a starting point many have concluded 
that in the beginning the word was used by the Chris- 
tians as the name of the individual congregation only, 
and that later it was applied to the whole body of Chris- 
tians. Matt. 16:18, being in conflict with this view, has 
been declared spurious. This view is strongly contro- 
verted by Prof. Rudolph Sohm, who holds that ekklesia 
in classic usage designated the assembly of the free citi- 
zens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly of 
the people, the assembly of the citizens of a free state in 
their sovereign capacity; and that in later times it was 
used of popular assemblies of various kinds, but not of 
the meeting of a society. The original idea of “the meet- 
ing of the people” remained in the use of the word. In 
the septuagint it is applied to the solemn assembly of the 
people of Israel (before God), whether the real meeting 
or the ideal unity of Israel (before God) is thought of. 
Ekklesia in the Hellenistic-Jewish speech is the people 
of Israel so far as it is the people of God, the chosen 
people, the people in and with which the power of God 
is effective. 

This gave rise to the use of the word among Christians. 
With them the word ekklesia means the New Testament 
Israel, the New Testament people of God. Here numbers 
have nothing to do with the use of the word. It is an 
expression of spiritual quality or worth. 

In a Greek republic there could, of course, be only one 
ekklesia, the assembly of the people. In the Septuagint 


192 WjHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

there is likewise only one ekklesia, the assembly of the 
people of Israel. In Christendom there can also be but 
one ekklesia. 

At the first glance the New Testament usage of speech 
seems to contradict this. In nearly all passages in which 
the word ekklesia is found it seems to designate the local 
congregation and not the whole body of Christians. There 
is an ekklesia in Corinth, another in Cenchrea, a third in 
Thessalonica, etc. Therefore, the plural is often used. 
There was not one but many ekklesiae in the wide circle 
of the Roman Empire, hence the prevailing view that the 
conception of the local community, a local organized body 
(a legal conception) not the entire community of the 
saints (spiritual conception) was fundamental in Chris- 
tianity. 

Not only the Christians living and meeting in a certain 
city or village, but those meeting in the houses of private 
individuals were called ekklesia. Paul greets the church 
(ekklesia) meeting in the house of Priscilla and Aquila. 
(Rom. 16:15.) This fact leads to the right solution. This 
shows that the word ekklesia does not stand for an aggre- 
gation of persons, not for a social conception, not for the 
conception of the local community, but expresses merely 
a dogmatic valuation. Every meeting is an ekklesia 
which according to its spiritual worth represents the 
assembly of the covenant people before and with God, and 
with Christ. Where the Lord, the head of the body is, 
there is Christendom. Where two or three are assembled 
in the name of Christ, there is the people of Christ, the 
New Testament Israel, there is the whole of Christendom 
with all the promises, for in their midst is Christ, who is 
all in all. Where Christ is there is the Ekklesia. The 
faith of the Christians sees in every Christian assembly 
all Christendom, the people of God, the whole community 


CHURCH. 


193 


of saints assembled in spirit. Origen says, “In every 
Christian assembly, there are present the angels, the 
power of onr Lord and Savior, the spirits of the saints, 
those of the dead, I think, but certainly those of the 
living, though it is not easy to say how.” For this reason 
every assembly of Christians, whether large or small, that 
comes together in the name of the Lord is called ekklesia, 
the popular assembly of the New Testament Israel. There 
is therefore but one ekklesia, but this ekklesia has nu- 
merous forms of appearance. It appears in the meeting 
of the local congregation, and also in the meeting of the 
household community, and in numerous other Christian 
assemblies, even if they do not represent a meeting of the 
local community or of the household community.” 

The above is a brief sketch of SohnTs view of the 
Church. This will be clearer when we shall have given 
something of his teaching concerning the organization of 
the Church. What has been given above will seem to 
many to be extreme, if not quite fanciful. The ordinary 
idea of the origin of the primitive name of the church 
(ekklesia) seems much simpler, indeed more reasonable. 
But many things that seem simple and plain at first sight 
become on closer examination very difficult and mysteri- 
ous. If we assume that ekklesia was applied to any kind 
of meeting, how did the kingdom of heaven come to be 
called by that name? Christians met in various places 
quite frequently, but there was nothing distinctive in 
that. The Jews met in their synagogues, and many so- 
cieties of various kinds had their places of meeting and 
assembled often. It is surely not clear why the kingdom 
of Christ should be called a “meeting,” either by Chris- 
tians, Jews or Gentiles. If SohnTs view is correct, if 
ekklesia means in the Hellenistic- Jewish speech, the peo- 


194 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


pie of God, nothing could be more natural than that the 
Christians should call themselves by that name. 

The kingdom of God, the Church, was, according to the 
common view, established on the great day of Pentecost 
by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. When the spirit of 
Christ was communicated to men, when Christ was in 
men and men in Christ, the kingdom of Christ, the 
Church, was established on earth. Not a meeting or a 
series of meetings gave rise to the Church, but the 
union of Christ and men. Those who received the Holy 
Spirit on the day of Pentecost and thereafter were the 
true Israel, the people of God, and they recognized them- 
selves as such and hence they called themselves the 
ekklesia, the Church. 

In giving the organization of the Church, Prof. Sohm 
adheres strictly to the teaching of Paul on this subject. 
Christ is the head of the Church, and the Church is the 
body of Christ, and each individual Christian is a mem- 
ber of that body and has his place and work assigned to 
him through the gift which he has received, for each 
member receives a gift whereby he is both capacitated for 
and called to work in the up-building of the whole body. 
Thus the life and activity of the Church is the life and 
activity of Jesus. There can be therefore no legal author- 
ity over or in the Church. The government of the Church 
is by gifts given by Christ the head to each member of 
his body for the benefit of the whole. (See Rom. 12:4-9; 
I Cor. 12 : 14-30 ; Eph. 4 :4-14, 5 :23 ; Col. 1 :18.) The Church 
is then a body spiritually animated, spiritually governed 
and directed by its spiritual head. It is, therefore, re- 
moved from earthly rules and principles of organization 
and government. It is not a meeting, an assembly, but 
the chosen people of God, the body of Christ the Savior. 

Nothing whatever can be said against Sohm’s view of 


CHURCH. 


195 


the organization of the Church, for it is unquestionably 
the view set forth by the Apostle Paul. Nevertheless it 
seems to me that he has given only one side of the mat- 
ter — the very important side truly, yet there is an other 
side. Sohm has given the spiritual side of the organi- 
zation of the Church ; but the Church is on earth and has 
to do with earthly things and affairs, and therefore has its 
earthly side, which, of course, must be entirely subordi- 
nate to and in harmony with the spiritual side. It has 
indeed too often been made the chief thing, for there has 
been as much contention in the Church about government 
and management of affairs as about anything else. This 
was caused partly by human greed and love of place and 
power, and partly by the belief that the Scriptures set 
forth a definite form of church government, and that the 
body not conforming to the Bible in this respect, is 
wrong, is not truly Christian. The only ground for the 
belief that there is a definite form of church government 
set forth and enjoined in the New Testament is the belief 
that such should be the case and therefore is. Whatever 
ought to be in the Bible surely is in it. Each congrega- 
tion needs some form of government and of attending to 
its affairs, but it does not follow that all congregations 
should always and everywhere have the same form. That 
there is no form of church government enjoined in the 
New Testament can easily be discovered by any one who 
will have due regard to every passage bearing on the sub- 
ject, not assuming anything nor going in any respect be- 
yond the letter. Not only is it impossible to find in the 
New Testament a definitely marked out form of govern- 
ment, but one passage seems to say that this matter is, in 
some degree at least, in the hands of men, subject to their 
will and judgment within certain limit's. The passage 
referred to is Matt. 16 :13-20, part of which reads : “And 


196 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the 
Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said 
unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah; for flesh 
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee that thou 
art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and 
the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give 
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- 
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed 
in heaven.” Some of the words of the passage must be 
considered before seeking the meaning of the whole. Jesus 
could not say, “Thou art Peter,” for the simple reason 
that it would not have been true if he had said it. He 
was not Peter but Simon. Jesus had said to him before 
that he would be called Cephas or Peter. That was a 
prophecy which has been fulfilled. No one speaks of the 
Apostle Simon, but of the Apostle Peter. But at that 
time the prophecy had not gone into fulfillment, for Jesus 
addresses him as Simon Bar-Jonah, that is, son of Jonah. 
What Jesus says is, thou art a stone and upon this rock 
I will build my church,” etc. W r hy Jesus called Simon 
a stone we may not be able to discover, but the contrast 
between a stone and rock can hardly be without signifi- 
cance. The widespread notion that Peter as the first be- 
liever, or confessor, was made the foundation of the 
Church will not bear investigation. It is said that Peter 
was the rock on which Jesus built the Church only so 
far and so long as he had faith; when his faith failed him 
he was no longer the foundation. If that were true, Peter 
as a person was not the rock, but simply the state of mind 
in which he was at that time must have been the founda- 
tion. The impetuous, changing and erring man Peter 
would not be a very safe foundation on which to build. 


CHURCH. 


197 


Others think that the rock is the divinity of Jesus, or 
Jesus the Son of God. “For other foundation can no man 
lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (I Cor. 
3 :11.) Jesus says farther to Peter, “I will give to thee the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” There is no 
limitation named so that if one overlooks the natural and 
necessary limitations, the passage may seem to have the 
broad meaning which is often given to it. With the keys 
Peter might open the kingdom for himself alone, or he 
might open it for others also, so far as the language is 
concerned. On account of the power of binding and 
loosing that was given him, it is generally thought that 
he was to open for others. The opening and the binding 
have been variously interpreted. The least that has been 
seen in these words is that the keys represent the honor 
of opening the kingdom first to the Jews by a speech on 
the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles in like manner 
in the house of Cornelius, and the binding was the state- 
ment of the terms of admission into the kingdom. But 
those who give this interpretation believe that Peter 
spoke on both occasions as the Holy Spirit gave him 
utterance, so that what he said was really the words of 
the Holy Spirit. Commentators have found in these words 
the bestowal of various privileges and powers from mere 
honor up to papal infallibility. It should be observed, 
however, that a key is not an instrument used in bind- 
ing and loosing and therefore the using of the keys is 
one thing and the binding and loosing another thing. 
The keys were to open the kingdom of heaven. Is the 
kingdom of heaven the Church or something different? 
The popular conception is that the Church is in this 
world, and the kingdom of heaven in the next. This is 
probably due to the fact that the people feel that the 


198 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

Church is not worthy to be called the kingdom of heaven. 
The kingdom of heaven must be something better than 
the Church as we see it. But the New Testament makes 
no distinction between the Church and the kingdom. 
Jesus began his ministry with the proclamation, “The 
time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” 
He must have meant the kingdom of God in this world, 
the Church. Having the keys, Peter had a right to enter 
into the kingdom himself, but to admit others at will is 
not implied. To admit others would be to build the 
Church, which was and is the work of Jesus. Jesus said, 
"I will build my Church.” Now the Church is built up 
of men and women. 

Peter says in the second chapter and fifth verse of his 
first epistle, “Ye also as lively stones are built up a 
spiritual house.” Here the members are thought of as 
stones in a building. “And the Lord added to them day 
by day those that were being saved.” (Acts 2:24.) The 
adding to the Church and the building up was and is the 
work of the Lord, and he used Paul in the work more 
than he did Peter. Peter then had no individual right 
to open up the kingdom to others. “The Lord openeth 
and none shall shut, and shutteth and none openeth.” 
(Rev. 3:7.) Jesus gave Peter the right, the power to enter 
into the kingdom because he believed on him. This 
power, this right he gives to all believers. “As many as 
received him, to them gave he the right (the power) to 
become the children of God, even to them that believed on 
his name.” (John 1:12.) To be a child of God is cer- 
tainly to be in the kingdom. Peter was the first believer 
who received, under these figurative words, the right, the 
power to enter into the kingdom. 

To many it must seem strange that Jesus should give 
believers the power to become the children of God or to 


CHURCH. 


199 


r 

enter into the kingdom of heaven. They think believers 
are already in the kingdom and are children of God. 
But from the point at which one begins to trust Jesus as 
Savior to the point where one is in perfect harmony with 
the will of God, that is, wholly in the kingdom of God 
is a long way, and no one can travel that way without 
help, that is, power from the Lord. Jesus promised 
Simon this help. 

The binding and the loosing have nothing directly to 
do with the use of the keys. Peter had a right to enter 
into the kingdom and he had the power to bind. What 
could he bind? Anything? Everything? There are 
limitations though none is expressed. He could not bind 
that which was already bound. He could not bind, that 
is, determine what is right and what is wrong, for that 
is fixed in and by the character of God. What is in har- 
mony with God is right, and what is contrary to him is 
wrong. One might as well speak of Peter’s binding God 
as to say that he determines what is right and what is 
wrong. God’s eternal purpose which he purposed in 
Christ Jesus our Lord, namely, that men should be con- 
formed to the likeness of his Son, he could neither bind 
nor loose. W T hat then could he bind? Clearly only that 
wdiich God had not bound. What is that? The expres- 
sion “on earth” seems at first sight to indicate the sphere 
of activity and so it is usually taken. But why thus 
designate the sphere of activity? Peter had no other 
sphere. He could bind neither on the moon nor on any 
planet. If used to indicate the character of the things 
that Peter might bind, it has meaning. It will be ob- 
served that it is not a right given to Peter exclusively. 
A little later (Matt. 18:18) it is given to all the disciples 
and that, too, in connection with instructions on the 
management of a very important matter, the regaining 


200 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

of an erring brother. The order was, to go alone to him, 
if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two, if he 
will not hear them, tell it to the Church. That, in most 
cases, would be a very good order, in fact, the best, but 
sometimes it might be best to send someone, or perhaps 
two or three, before going yourself, or some other pro- 
ceedure might be better. Jesus does not bind this order 
upon his disciples and upon us, but leaves them and us 
free to determine what way is best in each case. We can- 
not choose to neglect the erring brother, but we can 
choose what we think is the best way of regaining him. 
The regaining is the spiritual part; the manner of pro- 
ceedure is the earthly part. The one is fixed and unal- 
terable, while the other can be changed according to cir- 
cumstances. The sphere of the earthly in connection with 
the church is very important. Money must be raised, 
property bought, houses built, etc. How shall the af- 
fairs of the church be managed and who shall manage 
them? All that the church may determine and change 
again as circumstances demand and wisdom directs. At 
first in Jerusalem the only officers in the church were 
the Apostles. They taught and they received and dis- 
bursed money and attended to everything else. By and 
by complaint was heard that some part of the business 
was not well attended to. The Apostles seem to have 
thought that there was ground for the complaint, for 
they took steps at once to have matters better attended 
to. Seven men were chosen by the people and appointed 
by the Apostles. Their work was to serve tables or to 
minister to tables. This was surely earthly in its char- 
acter, yet important. The peace and welfare of the 
church depended to some extent on this business. We 
must note that it is not said that the Holy Spirit directed 
Peter or the Apostles to choose men for this work. The 


CHURCH. 


201 


Holy Spirit is not mentioned in connection with the im- 
portant changes made in the constitution of the church. 
Nor is it said that Peter appointed the seven deacons, as 
they are usually called. It is not even said that he took 
the initiative. A part of the church felt that they were 
being neglected and the twelve took measures to remove 
the ground of complaint. We may conclude that later 
they appointed more men for this work or for other work, 
if they thought they were needed. If a man was needed 
to serve tables, or to oversee a congregation, or a dozen 
congregations or for any other necessary business, he 
was appointed. Here is the sphere of binding and loosing, 
and the only limitation is that nothing be done that would 
contravene God’s purpose, that man should be conformed 
to the image of his Son Jesus. Therefore nothing must 
be done in violation of the principle of love, or that will 
hinder spiritual culture and growth. So long as love 
reigns, so long as love is the ruling principle and power, 
the form of church government may be Episcopal, Pres- 
byterian, or Congregational. Whatever form of govern- 
ment is best for a given condition of society may be and 
should be chosen. All these forms are of the things that 
may be bound and loosed again on earth as circumstances 
demand, and they will be bound or ratified in heaven. 

The church then is the body of Christ, the members 
being men and women more or less under the influence of 
the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus, and becoming daily 
more like Jesus, having as the goal of their transformation 
the perfect likeness of Christ, the Son of God. The 
earthly affairs of this body may be administered in any 
way that wisdom suggests and circumstances demand. 
That which is absolutely necessary to the church is that 
Christ dwell in it, that is, in each member. The man in 
whom Christ does not dwell is not a member of the body 


202 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

of Christ. But how shall we know who is a member of 
the body of Christ? Perhaps we may not know at all. 
“Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth, having 
this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his.” (1. Tim. 
2 :19) : The assurance that the Lord knoweth his own 
should be sufficient for us. However, men have felt and 
feel that there should be some formal act to distinguish 
Chri'stians from other men. This is indeed in harmony 
with their experience and observation. 

In ancient times, only the initiated, those prepared 
by proper ceremonies, were permitted to attend the mys- 
teries. The Gentiles who wished to enjoy the blessings 
of the Jewish religion had to undergo certain rites. In- 
deed some rites or ceremonies are necessary to admission 
into any human body, society, order or organization. 
What could be more natural than the supposition that 
some rites and ceremonies were and are necessary for 
every one seeking admission to the Church of Christ? 
What could be more natural than the conclusion that 
these rites are very important, and therefore, must be 
attended to with the greatest possible accuracy? When 
and how was the Church of Christ constituted? What 
must one do to become a member of the Church of Christ ? 
What are its officers and how is it to be governed? These 
questions have largely occupied the theological thinking 
of the world. No agreement has been reached, for there 
are still very many sects and religions. When one con- 
siders the divided state of the professed followers of 
Jesus, one must conclude that there is either great stupid- 
ity or blindness or perverseness on the part of men, or 
these questions are not very definitely answered in the 
New Testament. Why is not the church with its initia- 
tory rites, its ordinances and sacraments, its officers and 
its form of government, clearly and plainly described? 


CHURCH. 


203 


No doubt many will answer that it is plainly described 
but that most men fail to see and understand. Each 
sect or denomination or body thinks its conception of the 
church the true one, and it thinks too that there should 
be a union of all Christians, and each is quite willing, 
yes even desirous of uniting with all others on its own 
terms, and is somewhat perplexed and confused that 
others object. But still deep down in the heart of every 
one there has no doubt, at times, been a feeling that the 
New Testament might express his views on the church, 
which he knows are correct, a little more plainly and less 
comfort might have been given to the opponents. When 
it is understood that the church is the body of Christ 
and that its purpose is to develop the God-given pecu- 
liarities of each member in harmony with Christ, that is, 
into the likeness of Christ and that the head of the church 
has given the largest liberty in all other things, it will 
be seen that much that has been diligently sought in the 
New Testament is not in it at all. Unity in spirit, or 
better said in the Spirit might and should be attained, 
and diversity in forms benevolently allowed. 

Excellent books on the church have recently been pub- 
lished. In these books everything is called church that 
usually bears that title. The popular conception is that 
a church is constituted by the adoption of certain doc- 
trines, rules, rites and ceremonies, and it is and continues 
to be a church whatever its life and practices may be. 
Hence the authors of these books say that the church has 
failed to understand her mission and to do her work. I, 
too, in this work, have often called that' a church which 
is no church. It would be better to say there has been 
no church, than that the church has failed to understand 
her mission. If a body of people exists for the propaga- 
tion of certain tenets and rites and therefore does not do 


204 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


the work Jesus committed to his church to do, it is not 
the church, but a human society without heavenly or 
earthly end only so far as it furnishes employment and 
support for its ministry. That which constitutes the 
church is the Spirit of Jesus. The body that is quickened 
and energized by the Spirit of Jesus, is the church and is 
doing the work of Jesus. Jesus knows the heart, but the 
human test is, Is a body doing the work of Jesus? If 
it is, it is the church. The work of Jesus is the salvation 
of the world from all its woes by transforming the in- 
dividuals into the likeness of Jesus. 

Sacraments. 

The word sacrament } which has long been in general 
and constant use in the church, is not found in the New 
Testament. It is difficult to say how the word came into 
use. The explanation generally given is that the Latin 
word sacramentum designated the oath whereby the 
Roman soldiers bound themselves to be loyal to their com- 
mander. It is true that sacramentum was so used, but 
there is no evidence in the New Testament that the early 
Christians thought of the washing or the supper as an 
oath of loyalty. Another explanation has been offered 
that seems more probable. 

In every Greek city of any importance, and later in 
Roman cities also, were religious celebrations called mys- 
teries. Such a celebration presented in a mimic-dramatic 
way the history, especially the birth, suffering and death 
of some divinity. The scenic representation was accom- 
panied by exclamations, songs, various rites and cere- 
monies, and tokens of the presence of the divinity thus 
honored. Only the initiated could attend. It was held 
that attendance on these celebrations purified and ele- 
vated the life. The strictest secrecy was enjoined upon 
all who witnessed these scenes. They were not per- 


SACRAMENTS. 


205 


mitted to speak of them to the uninitiated at all, and 
only very carefully with the initiated. This perhaps gave 
the celebration its name.* Everything connected with the 
celebration was considered very sacred, so that the word 
mysterion acquired the meaning sacred. The Latin word 
sacramentum means really that which is holy. Thus the 
two words mysterion and sacramentum, at first so very 
different in meaning, finally met in the signification 
sacred or holy. The Greeks called every act and every- 
thing in such a celebration mysterion, and therefore the 
whole celebration was designated by the plural mysteria. 
Hence we call them mysteries. Now it is probable that 
the Latins applied the word sacramentum to the acts and 
things they saw at the mysteries. That is, what the 
Greeks called mysterion they called sacramentum. Cer- 
tain it is that in the early Latin versions of the New 
Testament the word mysterion, which occurs twenty-six 
times, was generally, if not always, translated with the 
word sacramentum, and this stands to this day in some 
passages while in others the Greek word is retained. To 
this day the Greek church designates by the word mys- 
terion what the Roman church and its descendants call 
secramentum or sacrament. 

In the mysteries there was a power ascribed to the 
rites and ceremonies that did not inhere in the acts and 
things themselves. The same acts and things would have 
been very insignificant at other times and under other 
circumstances, but as worship of the deity they were the 
embodiment of divine power. This was because of the 
belief in magic, which pervaded all classes in all coun- 
tries, not less among the Jews than among the Gentiles. 
Magic has always been attractive. The people of Bible 
times were so accustomed to the ascription of magical 


fJLVaTTlPLOV 


means a secret. Properly that which closes the mouth. 


'206 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


power to trivial things, that nothing of that kind could 
seem absurd to them. Since magic was in the minds of 
all people, a few prophets and apostles excepted, it is not 
strange that it found its way into Jewish rites and ob- 
servances or that it was brought into the early church. 
The fathers thought of their sacraments just as the pa- 
gans did of their mysteries. They divided each sacrament 
into two parts — the bodily act and the spiritual effect. 
The act performed on the body, they said, is simple and 
insignificant, but the effect on the spirit is immeasurably 
great. However they may have differed w T ith regard to 
the entire operation they agreed that it was the Holy 
Spirit that gave the sanctifying power to the matter, 
water, wine, bread, oil, etc., or exercised this power in 
connection with the material substance employed. 
Cyprian said that water alone cannot cleanse from sin 
and sanctify a man, it must have the Holy Spirit. 

How hurtful sacraments are we can learn best from 
Jesus. For this purpose we need only study his con- 
troversy with the Pharisees, recorded in the' 7th and 8th 
chapters of John. Jesus had healed a man (or indeed 
several men) on the Sabbath. This seemed to the Jews 
to be wrong, so wrong indeed that they thought he must 
be a sinner. Jesus tried to show them that they should 
not condemn him for healing on the Sabbath, since they 
circumcised children on the Sabbath. He urged them to 
judge righteous judgment, but to no avail. Healing, said 
they, violates the Sabbath, but circumcision does not. Let 
us try to see what their difficulty was that we may not 
fall into like errors. The proper keeping of the Sabbath 
is good. If one has been laboring six days the body needs 
rest and it will be benefited thereby. If while the Sab- 
bath-keeper’s body is resting, his mind is occupied with 
meditations on the true purpose of life, on his relation 


SACRAMENTS. 


207 


to others, especially on his relation to the Source of all 
life, or if by reading or hearing good thoughts are ac- 
quired, he is strengthened in his outer and inner man for 
the duties of the new week. The Sabbath is for man, 
and it is beneficial so far as it benefits him. With this 
view, which is correct or righteous judgment concerning 
the Sabbath, one can see that the keeping of the first day 
or any other day of the week would be just as beneficial 
as the keeping of the 7th day. One can also see that 
healing on the Sabbath could not hinder the proper keep- 
ing of the day. But not so with the Jews. To them the 
keeping of the Sabbath was valuable beyond the benefits 
derived therefrom by the body and the spirit. It pleased 
God and therefore secured his blessing, that is, it was a 
sacrament, for any act to which we ascribe a benefit 
greater than its proper effect is to us a sacrament, wheth- 
er we call it by that name or not. There is no means 
of fixing or determining the value of a sacrament. It 
may have any value one may choose to assign to it. One 
may think, as indeed some have thought, that one may at- 
tain to eternal life by keeping the Sabbath in the right 
way. To the Jews circumcision was also very important, 
more important indeed than the keeping of the Sabbath, 
and therefore the circumcision on the Sabbath. Acts be- 
longing to the economy of life can be measured and their 
value approximately ascertained, but not so with a sacra- 
ment. A bath may be beneficial. Considered as a bath 
a physician may determine its value physical and moral. 
But considered as a sacrament who can fix its value? It 
may be thought to secure God’s eternal favor. In the 
minds of people thinking thus it may be of more value 
than ten thousand deeds of love. Sacramental value may 
be assigned to various things. With some the attendance 
at church or prayer meeting, praying in public has sac- 


208 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

ramental value. Nay the most trivial things, such as the 
manner of wearing the hair or the beard, the cut or fasten- 
ing of the coat, may have sacramental value. The less 
real significance a thing has, the better it seems adapted 
to sacramental use. Sacra mentalists have been heard 
to say that God might, if he chose, save people for stand- 
ing five minutes on one foot and like absurd things. 
There is no reason why one sacramentalist may not be- 
lieve that God will save him because he never shaves, and 
another that God will save him because he shaves every 
day. I say there is no reason, for there is no reason in 
any way connected with sacramentalism. When one ac- 
cepts sacramentalism, one leaves the realm of reason, the 
realm of sound and righteous judgment and enters into 
the realm of magic. In magic there is no question about 
the adequacy of cause. By the decree of fate the most in- 
significant cause may produce a momentous effect. It 
must be clear to every one that the man who assigns 
sacramental value to certain acts cannot judge right- 
eous judgment. As the sacramental acts increase in 
value, all other acts decrease in value. We have the sad 
fact before us that the Pharisees could not understand 
Jesus because they did not judge righteous judgment. 
They did not judge righteous judgment because they 
assigned sacramental value to some acts and therefore 
esteemed other acts lightly. 

Broadly speaking all persons who came into the 
early church brought with them magical or sacra- 
mental notions. The teaching of Jesus would soon 
have corrected these false conceptions, if it had had 
free course. But the sacramental notions were helpful 
to the priesthood and they were therefore not suppressed 
but nourished. Largely for this reason the church has 
been weak in righteousness, and has failed to save the 


BAPTISM. 


209 


world. True, sacramentalism could not have prevailed, 
if the church had not fallen into such grievous errors 
with regard to the merits of the death of Jesus, the blood 
of Jesus, with regard to sin and the forgiveness of sin. 
If the church could have judged righteous judgment, it 
would have put into practice the teaching of Jesus in- 
stead of quarreling over sacraments and sacramental 
salvation, and it would long ago have saved the world 
from the terrible selfishness in which it is now strug- 
gling. Reason shows that sacramentalism must subvert 
all conceptions of right. The history of the Pharisees 
shows the same. The past and present history of the 
church confirms this. The teaching of Jesus is in every 
word and every sentence opposed to sacramentalism. 
Since the hurtfulness of sacraments is clearly set forth 
by reason, history and the teaching of Jesus, how can 
anyone think that Jesus instituted sacraments? 

Baptism. 

What has been said concerning sacraments is enough. 
No discussion of baptism or of the supper is needed. But 
it is very difficult to rid one’s self of sacramental notions. 
The following is therefore added to help the honest reader 
out of the confusion and difficulties which the miscon- 
ceptions and evil practices of the past have thrown around 
him. 

The words baptize, baptism are not English words, but 
Greek words slightly changed in form. Two passages 
will enable us to understand the meaning of the Greek 
verb, and from that the meaning of the derived noun may 
easily be inferred. “And when they come from the mar- 
ketplace, except they wash (baptize) themselves, they eat 
not.” (Mark 7:4.) “And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- 
veled that he had not first washed (baptized) before din- 
ner.” (Luke 11:38). From these passages it is clear that 


210 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


it meant to wash or bathe, and that the purpose was to 
cleanse the body. 

There is a great difference between washing or 
bathing for the purpose of cleansing the body and sacra- 
mental immersion as practiced by the church. That this 
word meant in the minds of the New Testament writers 
to sprinkle, to pour, to dip or immerse is an assumption 
for which no proof has been offered, and for which no 
proof need be sought or expected, as we shall see later. 
We saw in the chapter on washing that the Hebrew word 
meaning to wash was sometimes used for a moral or 
spiritual cleansing where no water is employed. It 
ought to go without saying that this Greek word is used 
in like manner in the New Testament. In the ministry 
of John the cleansing was superficial, it was a washing 
in water. In the ministry of Jesus the cleansing is thor- 
ough, it is the washing of the soul in the Spirit. 

John’s call was to repentance. His proclamation dif- 
fered from that of the other prophets in that he could 
say the kingdom is at hand, the Messiah is about to be 
revealed. All the people as one man rose up and went 
out to him and to wash in the Jordan. This they surely 
would not have done, if John had been preaching some 
new kind of washing not provided for in the law or the 
tradition of the elders. No people ever embraced any- 
thing new so eagerly as the people of Judea responded 
to the call of John to wash. But why should John pro- 
claim another kind of washing to a people who were 
washing themselves every day and sometimes several 
times a day? The Pharisees did not object to bathing, 
but they would not repent, and lead better lives, and there- 
fore they were said to have rejected John’s washing, 
which shows us that which every one should have known, 
namely, that the real aim of his effort was to induce them 
to purify their lives. John did not speak Greek but what 


BAPTISM. 


211 


was called Hebrew. Therefore we do not know what 
word he used. He may have followed the example of 
Moses and said, Sanctify yourselves, or he may have fol- 
lowed Isaiah and said, Wash you. The meaning would, 
however, be the same. 

But some one will say, John said “I baptize,” “I bap- 
tized,” and therefore baptize cannot mean wash, since 
John could not have washed such great multitudes with 
his own hands. It is true that John could not have bathed 
so many people, but that is no reason why he should 
not have said, I wash you in water. “And the Lord said 
unto Moses, Go unto the people and sanctify them today 
and tomorrow and let them wash their clothes.” (Ex. 
19 :10) . Moses did as the Lord commanded, and if he had 
afterward made a statement with regard to his work, he 
would have said, I sanctified the people, as John said I 
washed. This sanctification involved a washing of the 
body. No one would think that Moses washed the bodies 
of all the people in two days’ time, much less twice in 
two days. God said to Joshua, “Up, sanctify the people, 
and say, Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow.” (Josh. 
7 :13). When Joshua had told the people what to do and 
they had obeyed him, he had sanctified the people and the 
people had sanctified themselves. Samuel said, “Sanctify 
yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice. And he 
sanctified Jesse and his sons and called them to the sac- 
rifice.” Hid Samuel wash Jesse and his sons, or bid 
them to wash themselves as he had bidden the others? 
Joshua 5 :2-12 tells us that Joshua made flint knives and 
circumcised all the males of the Israelites. This work 
seems to have been done in three days. Here again we 
must understand that Joshua merely told the people what 
to do. It is very common in every day life to say that a 
man did that which he caused another to do. So, as in 


212 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


the case of Moses, Joshua and Samuel, John caused the 
people to wash themselves. 

That no form of modern baptism was known in John’s 
time and for more than a hundred years later, but that 
self-washing alone was practiced so far as water was used 
at all can be easily shown. It is assumed that every 
one knows that self-washing as a preparation for reli- 
gious exercises was practiced by Jews and Gentiles. The 
only question is, Was some other form of washing intro- 
duced into the church during the first century? Ananias 
said to Paul, “Arise and bathe thyself and wash away 
thy sins.” The translation, “be baptized” is without any 
justification. Two acts are enjoined, bathe and wash 
away. How he should wash away his sins is indicated 
by “calling on his name.” Paul had been blaspheming 
Jesus. This was his immediate and great sin. This sin 
he could wash away only by turning and worshiping 
Jesus. Here as everywhere, sin must be broken off by 
righteousness or right doing. Whether the bathing was 
thought of as a religious or as a sanitary act will appear 
later. Whatever its purpose was, it was certainly self- 
washing or bathing. Also in 1 Cor. 6:11 instead of “ye 
were washed” it should read, ye washed yourselves 
Here a moral or spiritual cleansing is evidently meant, 
yet it is spoken of as if it were a washing in water. 

In addition to this we must cite Justin Martyr. In 
the sixty-first chapter of his First Apology he says, “I 
will also relate the manner in which we dedicated our- 
selves to God w T hen we had been made new through 
Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the 
explanation w r e are making. As many as are persuaded 
and believe what we teach and say is true, and undertake 
to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and 
to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their 


BAPTISM. 


213 


sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. 
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and 
are regenerated in the same manner in which we were our- 
selves regenerated. For upon the name of God, the Father 
and Lord of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of 
the Holy Spirit they make* the washing in water. For 
Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is im- 
possible for those who have once been born to enter into 
their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those 
who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins is 
declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above ; he thus 
speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evils 
of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge 
the fatherless, and plead for the widow; and come and 
let us reason together, saith the Lord.” 

“And for this (rite) we have learned from the apostles 
this reason. Since at our birth we were born without 
our knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, 
and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; 
in order that we may not remain the children of necessity 
and ignorance, but may become the children of choice 
and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remis- 
sion of sins formerly committed there is pronounced over 
him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of 
his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of all; he 
who leads to the laver the one. about to wash* himself 
calling him (God) by this name alone. This washing 
is called illumination, because they who learn these 
things are illuminated in their understandings.” 

It was a favorite thought with Justin, that the heath- 
en borrowed nearly everything from the Old Testament, 

* rb iv rw v8an rore \ovrpbv ttoiovvtoli . 

t avrb tovto p.6vov eiriXeyopros tov top Xovffo/xevov tiyopros eirl t'6 
Xovrpop. 


214 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

often by the help of the devils. So here. “And the devils, 
indeed having heard this washing published by the pro- 
phet (Isaiah) instigated those who enter their temples, 
and are about to approach them with libations and burnt 
offerings, also to sprinkle themselves; and they cause 
them to wash* themselves entirely, as they depart (from 
the sacrifice) before they enter into the shrines in which 
their images are set.’’ 

We must note that Justin derives this washing from 
Isaiah. He mentions not a word on this subject as com- 
ing from our Savior. The penitent were led to water 
where they washed themselves while certain words were 
spoken over them. In this respect this washing differed 
from the Jewish washing practiced in the days of the 
Prophets. Just what the words were, is not clear since 
the two statements with regard to them do not agree. 
But the important lesson is that the only religious wash- 
ing known to the church at that time was self -washing. 
No form of “baptizein” is used, but the word found in the 
Greek translation of Isaiah 1 :1G, “Wash you,” etc., show- 
ing the dependence of the custom upon that passage and 
that “baptizein” had not yet become the technical term 
for the initiatory washing. This washing was traditional 
and Justin evidently had no satisfactory explanation for 
it. First he speaks of the penitent persons obtaining 
forgiveness through prayer before the washing and then 
of their obtaining remission in the water. It is difficult 
to see how Justin could harmonize this last statement 
with some sentences in his Dialogue with Trypho. For 
example : “If anyone has impure hands let him wash and 
be pure. For Isaiah did not send you to a bath, there 
to wash away murder and other sins, which not even all 
the waters of the sea were sufficient to purge; but as 


* reXcov 8e Kal XoveaOcu eTiiovras irplv iXdelv eVt ra Up a. 


BAPTISM. 


215 


might have been expected, this was that saving bath of the 
olden time which followed those who repented, and w T ho 
no longer were purified by the blood of goats and sheep, 
or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine 
flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and 
through his death, who died for this very 
reason, as Isaiah himself said.” “By reason there- 
fore of this laver of repentance and knowl- 
edge of God, which has been ordained on account of the 
transgressions of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have 
believed, and testify that that very washing which he an- 
nounced is alone able to purify those who repented and 
this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you 
have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. 
For what is the use of that washing which cleanses the 
flesh and body alone? Wash the soul from covetousness, 
from envy, from hatred; and lo! the body is pure.” Fi- 
nally a very important observation must be made. If a 
translation of Justin be consulted one will find, “they 
receive the washing in water” instead of “they make the 
washing, etc.,” as I have given it. The translator did not 
write the word “receive” because he thought that was 
the equivalent of what Justin had written, but simply be- 
cause he thought that that is what it should be. He saw 
that Justin said that the penitent v/ashed themselves, 
but he believed that the penitent received baptism or the 
washing and so he put it. This is an arbitrary change 
such as our translators one and all have made. They 
have changed Acts 22 :16 so that it reads : “Arise and be 
baptized,” instead of, “Arise and bathe thyself,” which is 
the exact equivalent of the original. If translators have 
given us their preconceived notions about baptism instead 
of translations of the texts before them, would it be 


216 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


strange if early copyists sometimes gave us their notions 
instead of the texts before them? 

We find then that as late as the year 160 the church 
knew nothing of modern baptism, neither sprinkling nor 
pouring nor immersion as now administered, but only of 
a self -washing which Justin regarded as derived from 
Isaiah. When John began to preach only self -washing 
was known. In the year 160 only self-washing was 
known. It is impossible to think that some other wash- 
ing was preached in the meantime. 

Since John baptized no one according to modern usage, 
the only question with regard to Jesus is, Did John ad- 
monish him, to wash himself as he did others? If John 
considered him a sinner, he certainly urged him as every 
other one to sanctify himself. If he did not regard him 
as a sinner he did not do so. If Jesus pretended to re- 
pent when he had nothing to repent of, he committed sin, 
for such an act would be hypocrisy. But it will be urged 
that Matthew, Mark and Luke say that he was baptized 
of John. It is true that this statement is found in the 
Gospels bearing the above names. In the first place that 
proves only that some copyist or copyists believed that 
John baptized Jesus, whatever he or they may have un- 
derstood by the word baptize. In connection with the 
supposed baptism of Jesus are some statements that must 
be carefully weighed. In Matthew Jesus is made to say, 
“Suffer it now for thus it becometh us to fulfill all right- 
eousness.” At a later time there were persons who 
thought that baptism fulfilled all righteousness. But 
Jesus never thought so and never could have said so. 
Such a statement is wholly at variance with his teaching. 
If it were true that baptism fulfills all righteousness why 
the Sermon on the Mount, why the parables? N o out- 


BAPTISM. 


217 


ward authority can justify the acceptance of these words 
as coming from Jesus. 

It is said also that John saw the heavens open and 
the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit in bodily form as a 
dove descend upon Jesus. According to this the kingdom 
was coming with observation which is contrary to what 
Jesus said. (Luke 17:20.) If the Spirit had the appear- 
ance of a dove, how could John know that it was the 
Spirit and not a dove? This difficulty was provided for 
by having the dove descend out of the opened or rent 
heavens. But if John had such outward demonstrations 
as this, how could he doubt afterwards? (Luke 7:18-20.) 
If God pointed out Jesus to John in this way, and he 
afterward doubted he doubted God’s word, which we can- 
not believe. The truth in this story can easily be found. 
God revealed to John that he should see the Messiah, 
should indeed be his forerunner. He was to know him 
by his spirit, or expressed in Hebrew fashion, by the 
Spirit that should be upon him. (See Luke 4:18.) This 
was easily changed into the statement that he should 
know him by the spirit that should descend upon him. 
In that case the spirit must become visible. The best 
visible form would be that of a dove. But how should he 
know that it was not a real dove, a tame dove or pigeon ? 
To make that part sure he must see it leave the very 
throne of God. All that is quite in harmony with the 
apocryphal writings, but quite contrary to the manner 
of Jesus. John recognized Jesus by his spirit, but after- 
wards when Jesus did not carry out his work as John 
expected, he began to doubt his own judgment with re- 
gard to Jesus. John might well doubt his own judgment 
but to doubt God’s word would be rebellion. But it was 
not God’s plan to give such demonstrations. If God 
pointed out the Messiah to John in this outward way, why 


218 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

did he not point him out to all the people in like man- 
ner? Certainly they needed such demonstrations as much 
as John. John could not have forbidden Jesus to wash 
in the Jordan. The river was open to all. This story 
could not have arisen till after water began to be used 
in a sacramental way by priestly hands, which was after 
Justin’s time. That Jesus washed or was washed as an 
example to others is not a thought, but is, like many 
other things said with regard to baptism, the offspring 
of thoughtlessness. Nobody was objecting to bathing, 
and nobody needed his example in this matter. He was 
at that time an unknown and unnoticed Galilean, whose 
actions impressed the multitude little more than those 
of Andrew or Simon. 

The fundamental question is, Did Jesus enjoin a sacra- 
mental use of water? There always have been religious 
washings, and there always will be. Any act done out of 
a sense of propriety is a religious act. People will al- 
ways bathe before going to church. Persons who resolve 
to lead a better life will sometimes bathe and put on clean 
clothes, and they may find this helpful. This would be a 
religious but not a sacramental washing. But it is be- 
lieved by many that Jesus did enjoin a sacramental 
washing when he said, Go ye therefore and make dis- 
ciples of all the nations baptizing them into the name of 
the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 
28:19.) This passage is held to be genuine because no 
manuscript omits it. But it must be remembered that 
our oldest manuscript was written about the middle of 
the 4th century. We will examine the internal evidence 
with regard to it. 

These words are said to have been spoken on a moun- 
tain in Galilee. It is not said that Jesus ascended imme- 
diately after giving his disciples this charge, but that is 


BAPTISM. 


219 


the impression that the whole occurrence makes on one. 
This impression is strengthened when we recall that there 
was a tradition in the church that Jesus ascended from 
a mountain in Galilee. In the gospel of Nicodemus we 
read the testimony of three men who said that they saw 
Jesus sitting on Mount Mamilch in Galilee, and heard 
him say to his disciples, “Go ye into all the world and 
preach to the whole creation. He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved, ; ” giving almost the same words 
found in Mark 16:15-19, adding the statement that he 
was taken up into heaven. The tradition that Jesus 
ascended from a mountain in Galilee was not known to 
Luke, or was rejected by him for he tells us that he 
ascended from the Mount of Olives. (Luke 24:51; Acts 
1:12.) This commission is somewhat varied in the dif- 
ferent translations of the New Testament. One has in 
the name, another into the name, another unto the name, 
and another upon the name. It seems that no one knows 
exactly what is meant by in, into, unto, upon, in this con- 
nection. Who can justify any one of these translations 
to the exclusion of the others? How strange that Jesus 
gave his commission in words so difficult to understand ! 
It may be said that the apostles understood what Jesus 
said. But they have never explained these words to us, 
for they never used them. Nothing is said to have been 
done in the name, into the name, unto the name, or upon 
the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. This as- 
semblage of words which has so constantly been used in 
the church for centuries seems to have been unknown in 
New Testament times. It is not found elsewhere in the 
New Testament. It seems indeed to be a theological form- 
ulation of a later age. 

Certainly no evangelist tried to report all that Jesus 
said and did. Each took out of the abundant material 


220 


WHAT THE BIBLE: TEACHES. 


that which he thought would fairly represent the life and 
works of the Lord. Many cases of healing were no doubt 
very much alike; the same thoughts were expressed at 
different times in different connections. So it is not 
strange that they do not relate just the same incidents, 
the same miracles and the same form of teaching. The 
teaching is always the same in spirit but not in form. 
But some things were done but once. He ate the last 
supper with his disciples, he was betrayed by Judas, he 
spent some time that night in anguish in the garden of 
Gethsemane, he was led before the high priest and then 
before Pilate, he was crucified, he died, w r as buried and 
rose again. These things are narrated by all. A gospel 
without these w r ould be incomplete. If Jesus gave his 
disciples different commissions at different times, each 
disciple might choose a different commission to give to 
his readers. But all that would seem very strange. If 
the commission given by Matthew^ had impressed the dis- 
ciples and the early church as it has impressed the church 
since the fourth century, it would have been recorded by 
every evangelist. Scholars generally believe that Mark 
16 :9-20 is spurious, and that the close of this gospel is 
lost or was never written. We cannot therefore know what 
Mark did write, if he finished his gospel, or what he 
w r ould have written, if he had finished it. If John heard 
Jesus speak these words why did he not write them? John 
gives us in his first epistle a summary of what he had heard 
from Jesus from the beginning, that we should walk in 
the light, live a life of love and that Jesus would help us. 
No intimation of any sacramental act is found in any 
of his writings. 

If these words were in Matthew’s gospel, or were cur- 
rent in the church when Luke w r rote, why did he not re- 
cord them? Would they not be useful and instructive 


BAPTISM. 


221 


to Theophilus? In this commission three acts are en- 
joined — “make disciples/ 7 “baptizing/ 7 “teaching. 77 Only 
the baptizing was to be done in or into or unto or upon 
the name, etc. Why this? But this part was never 
obeyed by the Apostles. They did not baptize anyone 
in the name of the Father, etc. This is not a new obser- 
vation. The Fathers saw this fact and tried to explain it, 
but it cannot be explained. All that can be said is that 
if they heard these words from Jesus they were disobe- 
dient or forgetful. 

When the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Peter had 
gone into the house of a Gentile they reproved him. 
(Acts 11.) He defended himself as best he could. He 
recalled that Jesus had said, “John indeed baptized with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 7 
Now if he had remembered that Jesus said make dis- 
ciples of all the nations he would not have needed another 
defense. That alone would have been a complete justi- 
fication. But he did not remember it. Peter’s justifica- 
tion was that God had given proof of his acceptance of 
Cornelius and his friends. When the Apostles heard this, 
they could no longer censure Peter, but exclaimed, “Then 
to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto 
life. 77 This was something new to them, something un- 
heard of. But if they had remembered that Jesus had 
solemnly bidden them to make disciples of all the na- 
tions, it would not have been new to them. But not one 
of them remembered it. Very many, perhaps the great 
majority of the Jewish Christians, thought that Gentile 
Christians should be circumcised, and should keep the 
law in order to be saved. Some went down to Antioch 
and taught thus, but Paul and Barnabas opposed them. 
As no conclusion could be reached it was determined to 
have the matter settled by a council at Jerusalem. When 


222 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

the council met, there was much discussion. Then Peter 
again related his experience at the house of Cornelius, 
and Paul and Barnabas related their experience among 
the Gentiles, and finally James quoted a passage from 
Amos, which he thought bore on the subject, and then 
they concluded not to impose circumcision and the keep- 
ing of the law upon the Gentiles. Now the question be- 
fore the council was, What shall we teach the Gentiles 
to observe? This was warmly discussed, Peter and pos- 
sibly other Apostles taking part, yet not one of them, not 
even Matthew, remembered that Jesus had said, “teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you.” These words may not convey to us a very definite 
idea of what they should teach the Gentiles, but if Jesus 
spoke these words to his disciples he must have known 
that they clearly understood his intention. It is indeed 
as if some one had asked the Apostles, Do you not remem- 
ber anything that Jesus said to you about teaching the 
Gentiles? and they had answered, No we do not remem- 
ber his having spoken a word to us about this matter, 
nor even that he sent us to the Gentiles. He sent Simon 
to the house of Cornelius, but farther than that we know 
of nothing. Paul also gives an account of this council 
in his letter to the Gallatians. In the second chapter we 
read (6:10), “But from those who were reputed to be 
somewhat (whatsoever they were it maketh no matter 
to me: God accepteth not man’s person) — they, I say, who 
were of repute imparted nothing to me : but contrariwise, 
when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel 
of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of 
the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto 
the gospel of the circumcision wrought for me also unto 
the Gentiles ; and when they perceived the grace that was 
given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who 


BAPTISM. 


223 


were reputed to be pillars, gave unto me and Barnabas 
the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the 
Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only they would 
that we should remember the poor: which very thing I 
was also zealous to do.” Here Peter, James and John 
first learned that Paul had been entrusted with the 
gospel of the Gentiles, that is, that he was sent, was the 
Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter knew that he had been 
sent to Cornelius, but that he had been sent to the Gen- 
tiles in general he did not know. Paul was then and 
there recognized to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, and so 
he has been regarded by the church to this day. If Jesus 
had sent the eleven to all the nations, then James, Cephas 
and John would have had no right to send Paul and Bar- 
nabas to the Gentiles while they remained in Judea. 

If two good manuscripts written in the 3d century, 
were found which did not have the last verses of Matthew, 
probably all scholars would say that this passage is spu- 
rious. But the proof that we have against the authen- 
ticity of this passage is greater than it would be if we 
could show that it was wanting in all the manuscripts 
of the second century, or even in the manuscript written 
by Matthew himself, for we see clearly that it was not in 
the consciousness of the Apostles, which was prior to and 
more important than all manuscripts. To say that this 
passage is authentic is to say that the Apostles were for- 
getful, worthless witnesses. 

For the above reasons we should have to reject Mark 
16 :16 even if it were in all the manuscripts. But as it is 
not in the two oldest manuscripts, it is generally rejected. 
We need not therefore give any farther attention to it. 
The above reasons for rejecting Matthew 28 :19 and Mark 
16:16 are certainly conclusive and need no farther con- 
firmation, but there is another reason for rejecting them 


224 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

that is far stronger than all that has been said. It is 
this: They are wholly out of harmony with the un- 
doubted teaching of Jesus. (See Teaching of Jesus, page 
127). In that teaching there is no room for any sacra- 
mental act. Every act required is real and directly con- 
ducive to the end had in view, that is to holiness and hap- 
piness. The two so-called commissions on the contrary 
present a formal or fictitious salvation by a sacramental 
act. There are then two ways into the kingdom marked 
out into the New Testament. One which consists in striv- 
ing after a life of love to God and to man, which is clear- 
ly taught by all the words and acts of Jesus even to his 
expiration on the cross. In this there is a real transition 
out of a life of sin into a life of holiness. The other way 
is indicated by a few words attributed to Jesus after his 
resurection: “Make disciples of all the nations, baptiz- 
ing them into the name of the Father, etc.,” or more con- 
cisely, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” 
Here salvation, the entrance into the kingdom is largely 
by a sacramental act. These two ways differ from each 
other as a life in which the daily bread is gained by 
honest labor differs from the life in which the daily bread 
is gained by the use of the magician’s wand. The fact 
that two ways are presented in the New Testament has 
caused much confusion in the church. Is Jesus the au- 
thor of this confusion? The fact that the so-called com- 
missions found in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 are 
in conflict with the teaching of Jesus prior to his death 
is the strongest possible reason for rejecting them as 
spurious. It is perhaps conceivable that the Apostles 
might have misunderstood some things, might have for- 
gotten some things, but Jesus could not be inconsistent. 

In harmony with the conclusion that Matthew 28:19 
and Mark 16:16 are spurious, is Paul’s plain statement 


BAPTISM. 


225 


that Jesus did not send him to wash. If Jesus sent the 
eleven to wash why not Paul ? Let us sum up very briefly 
w T hat we have observed. Matthew 28:19 is spurious — 

Because John does not give this, but a very different 
commission, viz. : “As my Father sent me so I send you.” 

Because this seems to indicate that Jesus ascended from 
a mountain in Galilee; 

Because Luke, who “traced the course of all things ac- 
curately” does not give this commission; 

Because it w r as not known to Justin Martyr; 

Because the Apostles did not know that they had been 
sent to the Gentiles, did not know that God had granted 
to the Gentiles repentance unto life, did not know that 
anyone had been sent to the Gentiles until they learned it 
from Paul; 

Because Paul thought that to him alone was committed 
the gospel of the Gentiles; 

Because the Apostles did not wash in the name of the 
Father or the Spirit; 

Because the Apostles did not remember that Jesus had 
told them what to teach the Gentiles to observe; 

Because, in short, this commission was wholly absent 
from the consciousness of the Apostles ; 

Because Paul, who w r as an Apostle in every respect 
equal to the others, says that Jesus did not send him to 
w r ash ; 

Because this commission is at variance with the teach- 
ing of Jesus before his crucifixion. 

We must then regard both Matthew 28:19 and Mark 
16:16 as words that Jesus did noc speak to his disciples. 
Consequently there is no command or instruction given 
to any one concerning a sacramental use of water. This 
ought to be sufficient to settle the v/hole question; but 
since people have so long regarded baptism as a divine 


226 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


ordinance, they cannot easily rid their minds of that 
idea. They will ask why was it practiced by the Apostles 
and others, and why is it so often spoken of in our En- 
glish New Testament if it is not a divine ordinance? In 
reply it may be said that the mention of baptism is not 
so frequent as most people think. There are 17 mentions 
of conversion recorded in Acts. In connection with only 
eight of these is baptism mentioned. The wonder is that 
it is not mentioned more frequently, when we consider 
the importance given to baptism at a later date. 

Let us try to see how things were in the lifetime of 
Luke, and not how they now appear to be. Luke wrote 
his Gospel and Acts for Theophilus. He said in the be- 
ginning of Acts that he had given in the former book a 
full account of the teaching of Jesus. But not one word 
about a sacramental use of water is found in his fmst 
book. Now, if the second book made on Theophilus the 
same impression that our book of Acts makes on most 
people, it would have been very confusing indeed. If 
he found a sacramental washing mentioned eight times, 
which seemed to be very important, but about which Jesus 
had said nothing, he would certainly have felt that an ex- 
planation was sorely needed. It must be clear that Luke’s 
Gospel and Acts as translated and usually understood do 
not fit together. Luke was a sensible man. If he had 
found it necessary to speak of a sacramental washing 
not mentioned in his first book, he would have explained 
its origin and purpose. In justice to Luke we must con- 
clude that when Acts came from his hand, there was no 
mention of a sacramental washing in it. All such men- 
tions found in our English version must be attributed to 
copyists, to misunderstanding and mistranslation. Chief 
among the interpolations of this book are the accounts of 
Philip’s work. 


BAPTISM. 


227 


It is well known that the 8th chapter from the fourth 
verse is regarded as spurious by very capable critics. The 
objections to this passage are of such a nature that any 
one may see them. It seems to be thrust into the narra- 
tive of Paul’s persecution and conversion. It would seem 
more natural if the writer having begun with Paul had 
continued until the story was finished. In these two 
stories the miraculous abounds far beyond what we find 
in the ministry of Paul. Why did the Apostles send two 
of their number to the city where Philip had been preach- 
ing? Some answer that they thought that the Samari- 
tans were not properly instructed, not fully converted. 
That would indicate a lack of confidence in Philip on the 
part of the Apostles. Others say that they went to lay 
their hands on the people that they might receive the 
Holy Spirit, that this is the proper office of the Apostles 
and their successors, the bishops. This passage is the 
sole foundation of apostolic or episcopal confirmation, 
and it does seem to be a complete justification of that 
practice. This, of course, has been denied, yet no protest- 
ant has been able to show that this passage does not sanc- 
tion this usage. Did the Apostles lay hands on Simon 
too? Why not? Did he too receive the Holy Spirit? 
If he did not, w r ould he believe that the others did? If 
he did receive the Spirit would he so soon offer money to 
purchase the coveted power? If he did not receive it 
would he offer money for that which seemed to him to be 
a deception? There is absolutely no ground for thinking 
that the Apostles did not lay hands on Simon. We can- 
not believe that such a man received the Holy Spirit. 
Now if Simon knew, as he must have known, that he had 
received nothing, while he perceived that the others re- 
ceived what he thought was a valuable gift, would he 


228 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


not have inquired why that was? He had believed, had 
been baptized, had continued with Philip. 

Those who think this an unperverted account of 
the conversion of some people in Samaria, must ans- 
wer some very difficult questions. Those who think 
that the story was arranged to justify apostolic or 
episcopal confirmation, should reflect wiiether it is 
not more probable that it was arranged to show how 
Peter and Simon first met and why there was such 
a conflict between them as the church legends re- 
late to us. In the case of the Eunuch nothing is 
said about the receiving of the Holy Spirit in any 
way. This seems strange after the occurrence in Samaria. 
It is peculiar that the washing is described so circum- 
stantially. Nowhere else do we find this. But strangest 
of all is the statement that the Spirit of the Lord caught 
him away. Some have thought that this should be taken 
as a Hebrew expression, that is, wind of the Lord, mean- 
ing a mighty wind. But that is not probable. Certainly 
Paul was not thus conveyed from place to place. Every- 
thing considered the story of Philip seems to belong to 
a later time, and consequently to be an interpolation. But 
if it were unquestionable history it would add little or 
nothing to our knowledge, unless it be that sometimes 
one person did bathe another. It is a mere assumption 
and against clear evidence, as we have seen above, that 
in those days one person dipped another in water as a re- 
ligious rite without reference to the cleansing of the 
body. But as one man sometimes washed another’s feet, 
so one man may have washed another’s body. But it is 
highly improbable, to say the least, that any Apostle 
or evangelist washed women. Here Philip may have 
washed the body of the Eunuch as an act of love and 


BAPTISM. 


229 


helpfulness, but that he washed the bodies of the men 
and women in Samaria no one should believe. 

The most important passage yet remaining to be ex- 
amined is Acts 2:38. This is important chiefly because 
it has had to do heavy duty in many a religious battle. 
Others would say that it is important because it is the 
first call to discipleship under Jesus after his resurrec- 
tion. 

Our translators believed that Jesus had enjoined a 
sacramental act called baptism. Some of them thought 
that this was the sprinkling of water on persons, while 
others thought it to be the dipping of the body in water. 
They believed, too, that God under certain conditions or 
for certain reasons overlooks sins and regards and treats 
a sinful man as if he were perfectly holy. They valued 
the sacramental act, baptism, variously, some regarding 
it as absolutely necessary to God’s favor, while others 
thought it not absolutely necessary, but very important. 
Under the influence of these views they translated Acts 
2 :38 thus : “Repent ye and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ for (or unto) the remission 
of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” 
This is a possible translation and viewed from the stand- 
point of the translators is a probable one. Careful ex- 
amination shows that something is wrong. The remission 
of sins is thought of as an act of God as the gift of the 
Holy Spirit certainly is. Why are they not directly 
connected? Why not say “Repent and be baptized and 
ye shall receive the remission of your sins and the gift 
of the Holy Spirit? But we have seen (see chapter on 
forgiveness) that God does not under any condition over- 
look sin, never regards the sinful man as holy. We have 
seen also that Jesus did not enjoin a washing or a sacra- 
mental act of any kind, and that such an act cannot be 


230 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

a reason for acceptance with God, for Jesus taught in the 
plainest and most emphatic manner that the only ground 
of acceptance with God is trust in him. From this stand- 
point the above translation is wrong. Let us translate 
in harmony with what we have thus far learned. “In 
the name of Jesus Christ repent ye and let every one of 
you wash himself with the intention of putting away sin 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This 
agrees with Luke 24.47, which reads, “And that repent- 
ance unto the remission of sins should be preached in his 
name.” Now changing “unto the remission of sins” to 
“with the intention of putting away sins” we have the 
exact substance of what Peter said above. The preaching, 
it will be observed, was to be done in the name of Jesus. 
And what could be more fitting than that Peter should 
call on the people in the name of Jesus Christ to repent 
with the determination of putting away sin? Luke knew 
nothing about a baptism to be performed in or upon the 
name of Jesus, or he would have mentioned it in his 
gospel. There he tells us that repentance should be 
preached in his name. The preaching, the proclamation 
was in his name — not some outward act. But what about 
the washing and why translate with the active wash him- 
self when in the original it is passive he washed? We 
will consider the last question first. The verb translated 
in the common version by “be baptized” is passive, and 
the form of the English represents the form of the origi- 
nal. But must this passive form be rendered into the 
English by a passive? Let us turn to some passages in 
the Old Testament. In Ex. 19:22 we find these words: 
“Let the priests sanctify themselves.” This represents 
the Hebrew exactly. If we turn to the Greek translation 
Tvhich was written long before the New Testament was 
written and was highly esteemed and much used by the 


BAPTISM. 


231 


Christians of the first centuries, we find that the word 
representing sanctify * themselves is in exactly the same 
form that he baptized in Acts 2 :38 is. Now this was not 
because the men who translated the Hebrew into the 
Greek misunderstood the form of the Hebrew word. 
They could not be mistaken in that. But to them this 
passive form of the Greek verb had not a passive but a 
reflexive meaning; that is, the word does not mean to be 
sanctified, but sanctify themselves. In Leviticus 11:44, 
Josh. 7:13, 1 Sam. 16:5 we find sanctify yourselves and 
each time the Greek verb representing this is in the pas- 
sive as in Ex. 19 :22. In each case the act of sanctifying 
included washing, so that from this point, these examples 
are relevant. But they are to the point in another re- 
spect. In each case a Hebrew reflexive verb is translated 
by a Greek passive. Now Peter did not on the day of 
pentecost speak Greek but Hebrew. Not the Hebrew of 
David or Isaiah, but still a language akin to that of the 
prophets and called Hebrew. (Acts 22:2). We know 
that he spoke Hebrew (1) because that was the common 
language in Jerusalem and (2) according to the informa- 
tion we have, he could not speak Greek. When he spoke 
to Greek speaking Jews it is said that Mark translated 
for him. This speech then, was delivered in Hebrew 
Who translated it into Greek we do not know. But so 
much is certain, it was in Hebrew and now it is in Greek. 
Let us suppose that Peter used the Hebrew reflexive 
form, that is, said wash yourselves as we have above 
sanctify yourselves, and he may have used just this ex- 
pression, would it be strange if some translator putting 
it into the Greek used the passive form of the Greek verb 
to represent the Hebrew reflexive just as the translators 
of the above passages did? Possibly some one might 


ol lepeit ol eyyitovres Kvply 6e<p ay laaOrjTuaav. 


232 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


think that there is something peculiar about the Greek 
word meaning to sanctify that led the translators to 
use the passive form in a reflexive sense. Other examples 
might be given but one will be sufficient. Luke 11:38 
we read* “And when the Pharisee saw it he marveled 
that he had not first washed before dinner.” Of course 
the meaning is “had not washed himself.” Himself is 
omitted because the reader naturally supposes that. Now 
in this sentence “had washed” represents the same verb 
in nearly the same form that is translated by be baptized 
in Acts 2 :38, the only difference being that the one is in 
the indicative and the other in the imperative. Luke 
then who wrote Acts, certainly used the passive form of 
the verb meaning to wash in the reflexive sense. There 
is in the form of the sentence a reason for translating 
“Repent ye and let each one of you wash himself.” Re- 
pent is second person plural addressed to all collectively, 
but the next verb is third person singular wfith the sub- 
ject each one. Why this change from the collective to 
the particular? Such a change could not be the result of 
habit; it is not what one would naturally say. The only 
apparent reason is that he had an individual act in mind, 
not something that was to be done collectively. That 
would be self- washing. But whence this washing? Why 
call on them to wash at all? The unclean, the impure 
should wash, therefore washing was a part of sanctifica- 
tion and was connected with repentance, that is, the put- 
ting away of the unclean life. Jeremiah called on Jeru- 
salem to wash her heart. Isaiah bade the people wash 
themselves and this was repeated, no doubt, thousands of 
times in the history of the people. Nothing could be 
more natural for a Jewish reformer than to call on the 
people to repent and wash themselves. Yet this was not 

* 6 dk (frapiaaios idojv edav/xaaev '6ti oi irpurov e/3 airTia Or] v po tov 
Aplarov. 


.BAPTISM. 


233 


always done as this washing was not thought of as indis- 
pensable. The repentance was the necessary thing, and 
this might be thorough without washing. In Peter’s sec- 
ond recorded speech nothing is said about water. He 
said, “Repent ye therefore and turn, that your sins be 
blotted out, so that there may come seasons of refreshing 
from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send 
the Christ that has been appointed for you, even Jesus.” 
Here the admonition to repent was strengthened by 
“turn” as it was in the first speech by let each one wash 
himself. But the verb turn is in the same form as the 
verb repent which goes to confirm our observation that 
the washing spoken of in the first speech was to be an 
individual act. Here the repentance is to be full and 
complete, for the expression “that your sins be blotted” 
out is an exact equivalent of “to the putting away of your 
sins” found in the first speech. And this too is on man’s 
side, what man should do. On God’s part he promised 
seasons of refreshing and that he would send the Christ. 
These two speeches differ in form of expression but they 
agree exactly in meaning. In both thorough repentance 
with the intention of eradicating sins is enjoined, and 
help from God is promised. In the first the Holy Spirit 
is promised and in the second Jesus is promised, but we 
have seen that the Holy Spirit is Jesus in spirit form. 

If there were any doubt remaining with regard to the 
washing spoken of in the first speech, if it still seemed 
to some that it might be something necessary or at least 
important in and of itself this second speech must remove 
all that. The one speech cannot contain something es- 
sential that is not found in the other. They should agree 
and they do agree. This washing then cannot be a sac- 
ramental act imposed on all men and for all times. 

The result of the first speech was as we read (2:41), 


234 


WHiAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


“They then that received his word washed themselves.” 
The result of the second speech is recorded thus, (4:4), 
“But many of them that heard the word believed.” Not 
one word in all the account is said about washing. Would 
it be surprising if the statement about the washing in 
2:41 had been added by a later hand? At the close of 
the account of the second speech this word might have 
been inserted, but at the time such insertions were made, 
this washing had become a sacramental act, a priestly 
act. But the Apostles had been arrested and there 
seemed to be nobody there to perform such an act. That 
would be a reason for not inserting it. 

The next account, passing over the 8th chapter which 
we have already considered, is found 9:17-19: “And 
Ananias departed, and entered into the house, and laying 
his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord even 
Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou 
earnest, hath sent me that thou mayest receive thy sight 
and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And straightway 
there fell from his eyes as it were scales and he received 
his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took 
food and was strengthened.” Along with this must be 
taken the account which Paul gives of this to his country- 
men at Jerusalem. In our Bibles Ananias is represented 
as saying, “And now why tarriest thou ? arise and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins calling on his name.” By 
translation and punctuation everything possible has been 
done to make out sacramental baptism in this case. In- 
deed I think that the limit of the possible has been 
crossed. When we say, I wash, I dress, we may mean, I 
wash myself, I dress myself, or the meaning may be that 
I wash something else. But in the Greek the verbs I 
wash, I dress, I bathe, have a form that always indicates 
that the subject does the act upon himself. The verb 


BAPTISM. 


235 


here translated to be baptized is in this form and should 
therefore be rendered wash thyself. But as there is an- 
other word following that also means to wash, the whole 
sentence should read, And now why dost thou delay, 
arise, bathe thyself and wash away thy sins calling on 
the name of the Lord. The meaning is, bathe your body, 
cleanse your body in water, and cleanse your soul from 
sin by calling on the name of the Lord, that is, by wor- 
shiping Jesus whom you have been persecuting. From the 
14th and 21st verses of the 9th chapter we learn that 
Christians, followers of Jesus, were sometimes designated 
as those calling on his name, hence the expression calling 
on the name of the Lord had to them a broader and deep- 
er meaning. In accord with this, 9 :18-19, may and should 
read: And he arose, bathed or washed himself and took 
food and was strengthened; or more literally, having 
arisen he bathed himself and having taken food he was 
strengthened. Paul was smitten down by the way, and 
being blind he was led into Damascus. He was there 
three days without eating or drinking. During this time 
he certainly did not bathe. What would be more natural 
than that he should bathe under such circumstances be- 
fore eating. As a Pharisee he had no doubt always 
bathed before eating, and now a bath was necessary and 
certainly very beneficial. But no kind of modern baptism 
would have answered the purpose. 

The account of what Peter said and did at the house of 
Cornelius (Acts 10:35-48) is thought by many to be con- 
clusive proof of the importance, if not of the necessity of 
immersion in water. These people make here as every- 
where else the fatal mistake of assuming that modern im- 
mersion or modern baptism in any form was known and 
practiced in that day. We will examine the passage. In 
the 48th verse in the common version we find the words 


236 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


“in the name of the Lord/’ instead of which is “in the 
name of Jesus Christ” in the revised. This shows that 
the ancient authorities did not agree as to these words. 
That is not all, the ancient authorities disagree as to the 
place in which these words should stand in the sentence. 
Some seem to say, “he commanded them in the name of 
Jesus Christ, etc.” We have already seen that Peter 
had no directions from Jesus with regard to washing. 
These words must therefore have been added by later 
hands. This accounts for the difference in the words that 
have been inserted and in the places in which they were 
inserted. One copyist put in one expression and another 
another. One put the words in this place, another in 
that. When Peter and his Jewish companions saw that 
the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit they were 
amazed. When people are amazed they frequently say 
and do things that they would not say and do when com- 
posed. They had not thought it possible that God could 
accept Gentiles, and now they saw the fact before their 
eyes. Peter asks his Jewish companions whether anyone 
could object to allowing these Gentiles to wash them- 
selves as was the custom with the proselytes. Here we 
see clearly that Peter had no divine instruction, else he 
would not have asked his companions. This was a Jewish 
conference with regard to a Jewish matter. That no one 
insisted that the Gentiles should be circumcised must be 
noted to their credit. As no one objected Peter directed 
them to wash themselves. It is hardly supposable that 
any of these Jews would have washed these Gentiles. 

In the case of Lydia the washing must have been self- 
washing, and very probably, likewise in the case of the 
jailor and his house, if indeed the mention of washing 
be not an interpolation in both cases. 

Paul preached next in Thessalonica, Beroea and 


BAPTISM. 


237 


Athens, but nothing is said about washing. From Athens 
Paul went to Corinth. To a proper understanding of 
what was done at Corinth we must examine the first 
chapter of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and the study 
of this chapter will be greatly helped by a careful con- 
sideration of the account of the meeting of Apollos with 
Priscilla and Aquila and the meeting of Paul with the 
12 disciples at Ephesus. Apollos is described as an elo- 
quent or as some take it, a learned man. He was proba- 
bly both. He was mighty in the Scriptures, which here 
means the Old Testament. He had been instructed in the 
way of the Lord. One manuscript says that he had been 
instructed in his own country, that is, Alexandria, and 
this is probably correct. The way, the way of truth, the 
way of the Lord, the way of God, the way of salvation, 
were designations of the Christian religion, of the Chris- 
tian life. Apollos had been instructed in the Christian 
religion. Jesus had been preached for more than 20 
years, and it may be assumed as certain that the Jews 
of Alexandria knew of the life and teaching of Jesus 
before his crucifixion. It is said that he taught accurate- 
ly the things concerning Jesus. He must have known of 
the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. 
But all that would not have constituted a message if he 
had not known that repentance, change of mind to the 
putting away of sins should be preached in his name. 
The only defect noted in his preaching was that he knew 
nothing of the cleansing of or by the Holy Spirit. He 
knew only of a washing in water which was technically 
called John’s washing. The mention of John has led 
many to think that Apollos was a disciple of John. But 
that is impossible. John preached a Messiah to come. If 
Apollos had preached thus, he would not have taught 
accurately the things concerning Jesus. Such a man as 


238 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


Apollos could not have contented himself all these years 
with a message of a Messiah about to be revealed. If 
necessary he would have gone to Jerusalem to learn 
whether this Messiah had come or not. He had the acts 
and the teachings of Jesus, only a washing in water had 
been substituted for the cleansing of the Holy Spirit. No 
one should have had the least difficulty in understanding 
the positon of Apollos, since there are men today, of 
whom we may say that they are eloquent, mighty in the 
Scriptures, fervent in spirit, and teach accurately the 
things concerning Jesus, knowing only a dipping in wa- 
ter, which they believe was John’s baptism. Some of 
these men will go so far as to maintain that there is no 
such personality as the Holy Spirit and that there is no 
cleansing power connected with the Christian religion 
save that of the printed words of the Bible. It ought not 
to be surprising to find this error so early in the church. 
Spiritual things are not so easily grasped and held as 
outward forms and ceremonies. Religious washings had 
always been practiced by the Jews and they were continu- 
ally emphasized more and more, Religious washings were 
practiced by the Gentiles, especially in connection with 
the celebration of the Mysteries which had from the be- 
ginning an influence on views and practice of Chris- 
tians. It required no argument to convince the people 
that it was necessary to undergo a religious washing. To 
that they were thoroughly accustomed. John said, I 
wash you, cleanse you in water, but Jesus will cleanse 
you with the Holy Spirit. John’s work was superficial 
and only preparatory, that of Jesus is thorough and final. 
This washing or cleansing that John said Jesus would do, 
and Jesus said himself he would do, must be Christian 
washing or cleansing. In view of the above it seems very 
strange that men will think and say the act in John’s 


BAPTISM. 


239 


baptism and Christian baptism is the same, the only dif- 
ference being the words spoken in connection with the 
act. Now no one can show that any words were spoken 
in connection with religious washings in the first century. 
The standpoint of Apollos was then very near that of 
very many Christians of today. He thought a washing 
in water was proper while they insist on a mere dipping 
or may be a sprinkling. Priscilla and Aquila taught him 
with reference to the washing of Jesus, that is, the 
cleansing in or through the Holy Spirit. 

When Paul came to Ephesus he found certain dis- 
ciples. As the designation disciple is not qualified or 
limited in any way, the writer must mean disciples of 
Christ. We certainly have not the whole conversation 
between Paul and these disciples. We are not told why 
Paul asked them whether they had received the Holy 
Spirit or not. Some have conjectured that he saw some- 
thing wrong in their conduct. There is no support what- 
ever in the text for this. This account following imme- 
diately that of Apollos’ case would much rather suggest 
that Paul had found other believers in Jesus with whom 
a washing in water had superseded the true Christian 
cleansing, the cleansing through the Holy Spirit. The 
supposition that there were at that time others perhaps 
many others who received instruction similar to that 
given Apollos and these twelve disciples is reasonable. 
This supposition fully justifies the question which Paul 
asked. It is significant that Paul did not ask, did ye re- 
seive the Holy Spirit when ye were baptized ? If the pop- 
ular view of baptism were correct and especially if the 
interpretation often given to Acts 2 :38 were correct, this 
would have been a natural question. Paul connects the 
receiving of the Holy Spirit directly with believing. As to 
the answer which they gave to Paul, namely, “Nay, we 


240 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

did not so much as hear whether there is a Holy Spirit,” 
there is some difference of opinion, but all agree that in 
their religious instruction nothing was said about the 
Holy Spirit. Paul may well have known by experience 
that religious instructors who say nothing about the 
Holy Spirit emphasize washing in water. The rule is and 
always has been the less spirituality the more attention 
to outward forms. When Paul heard that these men had 
been told nothing about the Holy Spirit he probably 
knew that they had been told to wash in water. He knew, 
too, the source and foundation of this practice. In order 
to lead them to their mistake he asks, “To what purpose 
was your washing?” They say, “The object in view T was 
the washing of John,” that is, they were seeking the 
benefits accruing from that washing. Paul knew that 
they would go to John for authority, and he is now in 
position to show them the absurdity of their practice. 
John, in his ministry, pointed the people to the one that 
was to come after him, that is, to Jesus. But these dis- 
ciples knew that Jesus had come, had suffered and died, 
had risen and was glorified. How absurd then it was to 
pass over Jesus and to go back to John for anything. 
This ought to be convincing and so it was in this case. It 
will be said that the above paraphrase is not like the one 
found in our Bible. That must be admitted, yet the para- 
phrase is true to the original. The words translated 
‘into what” can, according to Greek usage, be equally 
well translated to what purpose? The question in this 
form has both a motive and a meaning which cannot be 
said of the question “into what,” for there is no mention 
of baptizing into the Holy Spirit or even into the name 
of the Holy Spirit save in the spurious passage Matthew 
28:19. If these men had heard of the doctrine of bap- 
tism for the remission of sins, they would certainly have 


BAPTISM. 


241 


answered, for the remission of sins. This answer would 
have suited the form of the question. The answer as we 
have it in our English translation is in full,” we were 
baptized into John’s baptism.” Probable no one ever 
read this answer without thinking that it had little 
meaning. But if w r e take their answer to be an abbrevi- 
ated expression for, our washing had for its purpose the 
purpose of John’s washing the answer is not meaning- 
less. Paul can now show them that the purpose of John’s 
entire ministry was to prepare the people for the coming 
Messiah and to direct the people to him. Jesus was in 
every sense the end of John’s ministry. ‘And when they 
heard this “they were baptized into the name of the Lord 
Jesus.” This is taken to mean that Paul dipped these 
people into water, saying, “I baptize thee into the name 
of Jesus. As there is no evidence that these men needed 
such a dipping, some have thought that “they” in this sent- 
ence stands for the people” in the previous sentence, those 
to whom John preached. This construction is not impos- 
sible but not probable. As the sentence stands it means 
and was intended to mean that these men underwent a 
washing of some hind. Along with this statement must 
be weighed the following certain facts. Paul was sent 
to preach, to teach, and washing in water was no part 
in his mission. These men had washed but they had not 
been properly instructed. They did not need another 
religious washing, but they did need religious instruction. 
If Paul washed them or directed them to wash them- 
selves he did what he was not sent to do. If he did not 
instruct them he neglected to do what was needed and 
what he was sent to do. If it be said that Paul certainly 
instructed them, but for brevity this statement is omitted, 
it must then be admitted that in abbreviating, it is natural 
and proper to leave out the less important, and to give 


242 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

only the more important facts. Therefore in the eyes of 
the narrator the washing must have been the most im- 
portant thing and the teaching the less important. Now 
it is clear that the narrator’s view in this matter is dif- 
ferent from that of Jesus. If Jesus had thought the 
washing the most important thing he would have told 
Paul to attend to that. But let us try to get clearly be- 
fore our minds what is generally supposed to have taken 
place at this time. These men had washed either during 
John’s ministry or after the close of that ministry. If 
they washed during John’s ministry they washed with 
reference to the coming Messiah. If so, they did what 
some, and probably all the original 11 disciples did. The 
only evidence we have that all the 11 disciples washed is 
the statement that the whole population of the cotta try 
went out to John’s washing. Now the 11 were not re- 
quired to rewash when they reached a more proper faith 
in Jesus after his resurrection. Why then should these 
men be required to rewash? From this it is argued that 
these men could not have washed during the ministry of 
John, but at some later period. This later period was no 
doubt when they became believers in Jesus. They had 
been under the guidance of some man like Apollos, and 
it may have been Apollos himself who had been instructed 
in the way of the Lord, but knew only John’s washing, 
that is, he knew of no cleansing save that of water. Some 
weeks, months or years before this, no matter when, some 
teacher, no matter who, let us say Apollos, instructed 
these men concerning Jesus — told them of the preaching 
and washing of John, of the deeds, the teaching, the suf- 
fering, the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, 
and that he is now Lord of all. They believe what they 
are told and acknowledge Jesus as their Lord. Apollos 
tells them to wash. What words were used in connection 


BAPTISM. 


243 


with John’s washing, if any at all, is not known. What 
words Apollos used, if any, is not known. But, to get at 
the essence of this matter let each one think of the prac- 
tices of these times as he has been in the habit of think- 
ing. One may see John sprinkling water on the people, 
another may see him pouring water upon them, anoth- 
er may see him dip each individual of those great multi- 
tudes into water and hear him say, I baptize thee unto, 
i. e., looking to repentance. Each one may then turn to 
Apollos and see him do the same act to each of the 12 
disciples and hear him speak the same words that John 
spoke. Now Paul takes these men and without any in- 
struction repeats exactly the same act that Apollos had 
done, but says, I baptize thee unto the name of Jesus. 
The difference between what Paul did and what Apollos 
did was the difference in the words they spoke. This is 
again a case of "open barley” and "open sesame.” One 
must think that there was magic in words. If there was 
no magic in the words, Paul’s act could only be ascribed 
to pedantry. To accuse Paul of such pedantry is certain- 
ly great injustice. To accuse Jesus of such, can hardly 
be less than blasphemy. Surely no one who has a reason- 
able conception of the -mission and doctrine of Jesus can 
accuse him of pedantry. There is but one solution of the 
difficulty before us. The text does not in this place pre- 
sent what Luke wrote. Some coypist has changed it and 
thereby has represented Paul as doing what he could not 
have done. These men needed instruction and Paul cer- 
tainly gave it to them. He told them of the promised 
Helper who would be to them a guiding, correcting and 
cleansing power. When they heard and believed Paul 
speaking thus they desired the promised help, and Paul 
laying hands upon them with prayer, the Holy Spirt came 


244 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


upon them with such manifestations as were necessary 
for the children of that age of imperfect conceptions. 

The case of Apollos and that of the 12 are sufficient 
evidence that there were teachers going through the 
lands teaching Jesus but retaining the washing of John. 

That they recognized it as John’s washing is a signifi- 
cant fact. If Jesus had instituted washing in water, 
John’s washing would not have been mentioned after 
that. But Jesus gave a religion of spirit, that is, a reli- 
gion consisting simply in devotion to him which is devo- 
tion to all that is true, beautiful and good, and this with- 
out rite or ceremony. The ceremonies of the religion of 
Jesus are deeds of righteousness. It is not strange that 
a religion so lofty was not comprehended by many, and 
that those who did not comprehend it imported into it 
some of their previous ideas, now Jewish, now pagan. 

We may now turn to the examination of the first chap- 
ter of First Corinthians. Verses 12-17 read in our Bible 
as follows : “Now this I mean that each one of you saith, 
I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I 
of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for 
you? Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? I 
thank God that I baptized none of you save Crispus and 
Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized 
into my name. And I baptized also the household of 
Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any 
other.” That there were really such parties in the 
Church should not be questioned. To avoid naming 
some party leaders he might use his own name or that 
of Apollos, but hardly that of Cephas, and certainly not 
that of Christ. It would seem at first that those who 
said, I am of Christ were saying the right thing, and 
that they were not a party. But Paul does not seem to 
think them better than those who said, “I am of Cephas,” 


BAPTISM. 


245 


or “I am of Apollos.” As Paul founded the Church of 
Corinth, it is not strange, if there were parties at all, 
that some should cleave to him. As Apollos was an 
eloquent man he could easily get a following too. It 
is probable that the Cephas party had its origin with 
some teacher or teachers who had known Peter person- 
ally and esteemed him above every one else. If the 
Christ party had been followers of some then living pre- 
tended Christ or Messiah, Paul would have rebuked 
them more sharply. This party either consisted of those 
who had known Jesus in the flesh, or they were adher- 
ents of some one who boasted of this fact. This finds 
confirmation in Second Cor. 5:16 (though I knew Christ 
in the flesh, etc.). We can easily imagine that some had 
an expressed admiration for Paul. While others said 
that they preferred to hear Apollos since he was more" 
eloquent and spoke with more learning and power. It 
is not clear what claim was put forward for Peter. If 
he had been the head of the Church at Jerusalem that 
would have been ground enough, but James seems to have 
been superior to him at Jerusalem. This is indicated in 
other places, but especially Gal. 2:12-13, where it is 
shown that the presence of those who came from James 
was sufficient to determine the conduct of Peter. The 
Christ party may have been connected with James, who 
was the brother of Jesus. But people have always dif- 
fered and always will differ in -their estimates of speak- 
ers and writers. But such differences never cause strife 
unless it is when a church is seeking a pastor. But that 
was not the case here. It was not the question which of 
the four, Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ, should be pas- 
tor of the church at Corinth. But there were not only 
differences of opinion among them, but there was also 
strife, contention, and that, too, to such a degree that 


246 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

the church was divided. After stating what he had 
heard, to-wit, that one had said, I am of Paul, another, 
I am of Apollos, another, I am of Cephas, another, I 
am of Christ, Paul exclaims, Christ is divided! This is 
usually read as a question, but there is nothing to indi- 
cate that it is a question. Our translators put it in the 
form of a question, thinking that Paul asked this, 
knowing that the answer would be negative, and that the 
conclusion would naturally follow that there should be 
no division in the Church. If one should ask four or more 
representatives of different denominations to-day, is 
Christ divided, each one would say no, I never thought 
he was divided. I have Christ entire, I preach the whole 
truth as it is in Christ Jesus, but these others preach 
only a part of the truth, they have only some part of 
Christ, but I have him entire. So each one thinks and so 
each one would say. It is useless, therefore, to ask such 
a question. Paul did not ask them what they thought 
about it, but he told them what he thought about it, or 
rather what was plainly the case. The Church is the 
body of Christ and to divide the Church is to divide the 
body of Christ, to divide his influence, his power for 
good. It was not a question with Paul whether Christ 
was divided, it was a terrible fact to him that Christ 
was divided, and it is a monstrous and shameful fact to- 
day that Christ is divided and his life and teaching made 
of little effect by the jealous and contending sects. Such 
serious divisions could not be caused by personal prefer- 
ences for this and that preacher. There must have been 
then as to-day doctrinal differences. Indications of this 
fact appear in several places. The following points evi- 
dently to this: “ According to the grace of God, which 
was given unto me, as a wise master builder I laid a 
foundation and another buildeth thereon. But let each 


BAPTISM. 


247 


man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foun- 
dation can no man lay than that which is laid, which 
is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the founda- 
tion gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each 
man’s work shall be made manifest, for the day shall 
declare it, for it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire 
itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is. 
If any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, 
he shall receive a reward.” (1 Cor. 3:10-15.) Paul says 
first, let each man take heed how he buildeth, then he 
says, if any man buildeth gold, silver, etc. He first 
speaks of the how and then of the what. That which is 
built upon the foundation Christ Jesus is persons. The 
manner of building must be the teaching. But some one 
will say, what is the difference what the teaching may 
be if the persons are only built upon Christ? The pur- 
pose of doctrine is to implant and cultivate principles in 
the heart. As a man thinketh so he is. The principles 
of the heart determine the life. Not what a man may 
respond when he is aske,d but what is deep down in his 
heart, that is his real view of things seen and unseen, 
things present and things to come, and his relation to 
these determines his life. Now if the doctrine has been 
gold, silver and precious stones, the principles resulting 
therefrom will be gold, silver and precious stones, and 
the consequent life will be the same. But if the 
doctrine be wood, hay, stubble, the consequent life will 
be wood, hay, stubble. We are not able to determine 
what were the various views of these parties, for 
Paul was not writing to some one about the Corinthians, 
but to the Corinthians, who knew well the distinctive 
doctrines of each. When we recall what we have above 
learned about Apollos, and the twelve disciples at Ephe- 
sus, and observe that Paul mentions washing here in im- 


248 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


mediate connection with party contentions, there can 
be but little doubt that the teaching concerning this 
washing was one of the doctrinal differences. Paul is 
thankful that he had washed so few, or rather that he 
had caused so few to wash, lest some opponent should 
say that the Corinthians were washed in his name. This 
is evidence that the now common formula in the name of 
the Father and of the Son, etc., was not used in that 
day, for if it had been no one could accuse Paul of hav- 
ing washed in his own name or into his name. There 
have been many party leaders and many fierce conten- 
tions in the past five centuries. Was any one of these 
accused by the others of baptizing into his own name? 
There was no room for this charge, for all used the same 
formula. It is usually said that the Corinthians were 
baptized by Timothy or Silas or possibly by Aquila. 
Paul is made to say: “Inasmuch as your baptism was 
not administered by my hands, it ^pnnot be said that 
it was administered in my name or into my name. Now 
this is clearly an absurdity. Timothy could baptize 
just as well or better than Paul into Paul’s name. Has 
it occurred to any one that the millions of baptisms of 
the children of men were not in or into the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit because 
they had not been administered by the hands of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Paul’s 
words have meaning only in case the Corinthians had 
undergone no religious washing in connection with his 
ministry. If we turn to the account of Paul’s ministry 
given in Acts 18 we find this statement, “and many of 
the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.” 
According to Paul’s statement, very few of the believers 
were washed, perhaps not more than four or five. We 
must, therefore, erase “and were baptized,” which was 


BAPTISM. 


249 


added by a transcriber at a time when all believers were 
baptized. How easy and how natural it was to add these 
words ! 

A question will here suggest itself to many. Assum- 
ing that John’s washing was still being practiced, and 
emphasized even to the injury of the Christian life, why 
did Paul not assail it as he did circumcision? Paul did 
not assail circumcision itself. Circumcision, said he, is 
nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. But those who 
preached circumcision said except ye be circumcized and 
keep the law ye cannot be saved. Paul knew that salva- 
tion is possible only through faith in Jesus. To seek 
salvation through circumcision and keeping of law, any 
law, was and is to fall away from Christ. Paul would 
not have objected to circumcision for sanitary reasons 
or as a custom, providing one did not trust in it as a 
means of salvation. It is not probable that any preached 
washing in that way at that time. No one said, except 
ye wash yourselves so and so ye cannot be saved. Cir- 
cumcision introduced one into Judaism, made one a 
Jew, but John’s washing did not introduce into Judaism 
and was therefore not coupled with the keeping of the 
law as was circumcision. Just what was the purpose of 
the continuance of John’s washing, perhaps no one stop- 
ped to inquire. There are many to-day, who insist on 
baptism, who would not receive an unbaptized person 
into the church, who can give no intelligent reason for 
the practice. They say it is not for the remission of 
sins, it is not necessary to salvation, but still it is neces- 
sary. They know that one can live comfortably in this 
world without it, and they believe that one can be happy 
in the next without it, and still they insist upon it. In 
the minds of people there is unconsciously some magic 
connected with baptism. If some doctors of divinity to- 


250 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


day cannot give a reason for baptism, would it be strange 
if Apollos could not tell why he continued John’s wash- 
ing? A thing so indefinite as the conception of this 
washing doubtless was, could not easily be assailed. 

It will be a help to the better understanding of this 
matter to remember that the religious washing of Bible 
times differed in many ways from modern baptism. Bap- 
tism is administered but once in a lifetime ; the religious 
washings were repeated often. On each successive occa- 
sion the Jews were called upon to sanctify themselves. 
It did not occur to any one to say at such a time, I did 
bathe three or six months ago. That would not be a 
reason why he should not bathe again. It would have 
seemed absurd to the people who heard John’s preaching 
to bathe but once. They bathed often in their expect- 
ancy of the Messiah. So it must have been at first in 
the Church. People did not cease their religious wash- 
ings after they came into the church. Not till the wash- 
ing became a sacerdotal and sacramental act was it 
done once for all in a lifetime. Since the washing in 
Paul’s day was not sacramental, it was not hurtful as 
baptism is, and since it was in so many ways good and 
proper it could not be rejected as a whole. 

Then it is not at all improbable that some persons, 
who under Paul’s preaching resolved to forsake their 
sins and to lead clean lives, bathed themselves without 
Paul’s knowing anything about it, and he certainly 
would not have forbidden it, if he had known it. In 
many cases to-day repenting persons would be greatly 
helped by a bath under the best sanitary conditions 
which they can control, and by putting on clean cloth- 
ing. When necessary the minister of the gospel will go 
with such a person and wash him with his own hands. 
What then could be or can be said against washing? 


BAPTISM. 


251 


Nothing whatever against washing. The wrong was and 
is, that many who emphasize bodily washing, the out- 
ward cleansing, neglected the washing of the soul, the 
inner cleansing which is through the Holy Spirit. This 
wrong, Paul tried to correct. He said, “Ye are all sons 
of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for, as many of you 
as have washed unto Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 
3:27.) Their faith in Jesus made them sons of God. 
To be a son of God is the highest honor and the greatest 
glory and happiness. Nothing can be added to this. 
Therefore the twenty-seventh verse must be regarded as 
the correction of a false conception of washing by giv- 
ing the true. The washing or cleansing into Christ, the 
washing that is acceptable to him, is the putting away 
of sins. The assimilation of our lives unto his life, is 
the true washing unto Christ, for it frees us from all 
uncleanness. But Paul does not only think of Christians 
putting on the Character of Christ, but also of their 
coming into the closest possible relation to him, of their 
becoming members of his body. They are members of 
his body because his Spirit dwells within them. But 
they cannot come into this body except by being cleansed 
from their sins. Therefore he says : “In or by one Spirit 
ye are all washed or cleansed into one body.” (1 Cor. 
12:13.) There is no excuse for thinking that any use of 
water is here meant or indicated. John said Jesus would 
wash or cleanse in or with the Holy Spirit, and Jesus 
said himself that he would do so, and this work of Jesus 
is put in contrast with that of John which was a wash- 
ing or cleansing in water. Paul says that we are all 
brought into the one body by this cleansing act of Jesus. 
When Paul says that the cleansing act of Jesus, which 
is so sharply distinguished from the cleansing act of 
John, brings into the one body, he says at the same time 


252 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

that the cleansing act of John does not do this, and is 
therefore unnecessary. The inner or spiritual cleansing 
could hardly be more strongly emphasized than it is in 
this passage. But in another place he warns against 
washing in water in a clearer and more direct manner. 
“Take heed lest there be any one that maketh spoil of 
you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the 
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and 
not after Christ; for in him dwelleth all the fulness of 
the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who 
is the head of all principality and power; in whom ye 
were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with 
hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the 
circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in 
washing (cleansing) wherein ye were also raised with 
him through faith in the working of God, who raised 
him from the dead.” (Col. 2:8-12.) What is meant by 
“tradition of men” and “rudiments of the world,” which 
he also calls “weak and beggarly rudiments” (Gal. 4:9), 
we can learn from the ninth chapter of Hebrews, part of 
which reads, “The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the 
way into the holy place hath not yet been made mani- 
fest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing, which 
is a parable for the time now present, according to which 
are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot as touch- 
ing the consciences, make the worshiper perfect.” The 
first verse of this chapter tells us that the first covenant 
had its ordinances of divine service and its sanctuary of 
this world. For this reason the sacrifices, meats, drinks 
and washings of the sanctuary are called rudiments of 
this world. Every one who has read Paul’s letters knows 
that his churches were in constant danger of invasion by 
Judaism, that is, by Judaized Christians. He, therefore, 
says: Take heed that no man make spoil of you through 


BAPTISM. 


253 


empty deceit, or by deceiving with empty unmeaning 
things, for in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the God- 
head bodily. Out of Christ is emptiness, in him full- 
ness, and he who is in Christ has all things pertaining 
to life and godliness. He has the true circumcision, 
which is the putting off of the flesh, the carnal mind; 
he has the true washing, which is the burying of the old 
man with his deeds and the raising of the new man 
through faith in the working of God. There is a bodily 
or carnal circumcision, and there is a circumcision of the 
heart or spiritual circumcision. There is a bodily or 
carnal washing, and there is a washing of the heart or 
a spiritual washing. The circumcision of the body and 
the washing of the body belong to the rudiments of this 
world, and will as regards salvation prove to be empty 
deceptions, and against these Paul warns, and to which 
he opposes the spiritual circumcision and the spiritual 
washing. 

Enough has been said to show that with Paul the wash- 
ing or bath called baptism in our English Bibles, is a 
spiritual act, but we must not neglect to note the impor- 
tant fact that in Romans 6 :1-11 this washing is connected 
with crucifying, and in Col. 2:8-12 with circumcision. 
When he says, “that our old man was crucified with him” 
no one thinks that any physical act is referred to. If a 
wooden cross and iron nails are not necessary for this 
crucifixion, why must we have water for the washing? 
If the circumcision is made without knife and without 
hhnds, why may the washing not be done without hands 
and without w T ater? It would be a strange mixing of 
things if the crucifixion and the circumcision are moral 
or spiritual acts, but the washing a physical act. There 
is a painful dying unto sin, that is crucifixion. The lust 
of the flesh must be removed, that is circumcision. The 


254 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


heart, the life, must be cleansed— that is washing. Of 
the three terms washing is the most expressive, for it 
implies not only a cleansing but also a refreshing. This 
is shown in Titus 3 :5, which unfortunately reads in our 
Bibles “he saved us through the washing of regeneration 
and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This has been sup- 
posed to mean that a bath regenerates and the Holy 
Spirit renews. That is, that a bath in water does a work 
equal to if not greater than that of the Holy Spirit. Such 
a thought should not even be named among Christians. 
It should read “he saved us through the regenerating and 
renewing washing of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus. 
This washing, this cleansing, wrought through the Holy 
Spirit not only brings the new man to life, but continu- 
ally renews and strengthens him, and thus we are saved. 
To speak of a water bath in this connection is shocking. 

The conversation with Nicodemus is of like import. 
(John 3 :1-13.) Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water 
and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” 
When Nicodemus did not understand, Jesus reproved 
him. The reproof shows that Nicodemus might have 
learned from the Old Testament the meaning of what 
he was saying. If we turn to Ezekiel 36 :25-29 we find the 
following: 

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, w r ill I cleanse 
you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
■within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, 
and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within 
you, and cause you to walk in my 'statutes, and ye shall keep my 
judgments, and do them. And ye, not yet shall dwell in the land that 
I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your 
God. I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will 
call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you. 

The people are to be made new creatures through the 
agency of water and the Spirit, but the water is sprinkled 
by the hand of God, and, therefore, this passage, as well 
as John 3:1-13, makes no reference to modern baptism. 


BAPTISM. 


255 


Nicodemus was blameworthy for not seeing that Jesus 
referred to this passage in Ezekiel. But what shall we 
say of the many theologians who have failed to see this? 

First Peter 3 :21 remains to be examined. Commen- 
tators who have considered this passage seriously have 
found it difficult and yet it has often been glibly quoted 
to prove that baptism is a saving ordinance. Seizing on 
the words, “baptism doth save,” no question is asked with 
regard to the kind of washing nor what the meaning of 
the whole passage is. 

If Peter did not let his mind wander from one subject 
to another, as the sound of the words led it, without logi- 
cal coherency in his thoughts, there must be a line of 
thought underlying what he wrote. This we must try 
to find. In order that we may have the text before us 
we will quote beginning with the thirteenth verse: 

And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that 
which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy 
are ye; and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but 
sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts: and be ready always to give 
an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that 
is in you, with meekness and fear. Having a good conscience; that, 
whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil-doers, they may be ashamed 
that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is 
better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing, than 
for evil-doing. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just 
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death 
in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and 
peached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobe- 
dient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of 
Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few', that is, eight 
souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even bap- 
tism, (a washing, a cleansing), doth also now save us, not the put- 
ting away of the filth of the flesh, Jbut the seeking of a good con- 
science toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is 
gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and au- 
thorities, and powers being made subject unto him. 

Having given admonition with regard to correct liv- 
ing, he comes to speak of suffering, and this he introduces 
by the question : “And who is he that will harm you, if 
ye be zealous of that which is good ?” The probability of 
one’s being harmed is less when one is good than when 
one is bad, but still there is the possibility of having to 


256 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


suffer for righteousness sake. If this should be their lot, 
they should not be amazed or terrified, but they should 
think of Jesus and sanctify him in their hearts. They 
should commend to themselves his life and think him so 
great and good that they would esteem it a blessing even 
to suffer with him. But to suffer with him they must 
bear suffering with the same mind with which he bore 
it, that is with fear and meekness, having a good con- 
science. They should not in any sense seek revenge, but 
return good for evil. Thus Jesus did. Even when he was 
put to death most unjustly he went at once to help those 
who had been rebellious and bad, so bad indeed that God 
had found it necessary to inflict a severe penalty upon 
them. They were so bad that they had corrupted the 
whole earth, and there was but one family left that rec- 
ognized God, and this family would not be able to hold 
out against the tide of evil, when Noah, their father, 
would be taken away from them. To rescue this family 
the sinners must be destroyed. So it came that Peter 
thought of the deluge as a means of rescuing Noah and 
his family, and as a cleansing bath, a washing that puri- 
fied the earth. The water did not save Noah’s life, but 
the morality of the family. He then makes the applica- 
tion to them by saying that they, too, are saved by a 
bath, a washing, which he then defines, first negatively 
and then positively. He tells what it is not and then 
what it is. It is not a washing that puts away the filth 
of the flesh, but this washing that saves, is a seeking of a 
good conscience toward God through the resurrecting 
power of Jesus Christ, who is able to raise us out 
of our sins, for he is at the right hand of God 
and all the powers of the universe are subject 
to him. The deluge was a bath that removed sin 
by destroying sinners, but in the resurrecting power 


BAPTISM. 


257 


of Jesus is a bath that destroys sin by bringing 
sinners to life — a glorious life ! The above line of thought 
is good and does violence to no word of the text. The 
comparison between God’s way of freeing the world from 
sin in the days of Noah and his way of freeing the world 
from sin in and through Jesus is certainly not unworthy. 
The passage then teaches us that the bath, the washing 
that now saves us, is not a washing in water, but is the 
seeking of a good conscience toward God, through the res- 
urrecting power of Jesus. The man seeks, strives after 
purity of heart and life, and Jesus gives the power, the 
victory over sin and thus the man is cleansed. I will ven- 
ture to say that no one can make a comparison between 
the deluge and water baptism that is not absurd. 

We have now examined not only every mention of bap- 
tism, but also every supposed reference to it. We found 
that John’s proclamation was, repent and sanctify your- 
selves, or wash yourselves. This proclamation had been 
made by perhaps all the prophets before him. It is prob- 
able that the prophets had bidden the people to sanctify 
themselves before every sacrifice. (Sam. 16:5.) This 
was not a washing that was done but once in a lifetime, 
but was repeated before every solemn occasion. There 
was no need for a new kind of washing in water. We 
found also that Jesus gave no command concerning a 
washing in water. This fact is made doubly sure by two- 
fold testimony. 

1. The conduct and words of the apostles show beyond 
doubt that they had never heard the words recorded in 
Matthew 28:19. The baptisms mentioned in Acts are 
either sanitary washings, as in the case of Paul at Da- 
mascus, or they were the traditional religious washings. 
Some mentions are interpolations, of which the eighth 
chapter is chief. John did not regard the washing in 


258 


W1HAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


water of prime importance. No prophet had so regarded 
it. Peter mentions it in his first speech, but omits it -in 
his second, showing that he did not attach importance to 
it. So throughout Acts. In the Epistles only a spiritual 
cleansing is mentioned. 

2. Matthew 28:19 is wholly out of harmony with 
the teaching of Jesus. This is the strongest con- 
demnation that can be pronounced against anything. 
Near the close of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus 
says to his disciples, “Enter ye in by the narrow 
gate.” That is, enter into life, into the kingdom of God. 
He had marked out the narrow gate and the straitened 
way in this sermon. He then bids bew T are of false 
prophets, or teachers. These must be teachers who preach 
an entrance into the kingdom by some other way. Those 
false teachers soon came and told men that they must 
enter into the kingdom through w T ater baptism; and how 
they have rent the Church by their teachings and by their 
dissentions over the sacraments ! 

The history of the sacrament of baptism is easily traced. 
Religious washings were universal. They were self -wash- 
ings. John called on the people to prepare to receive the 
Messiah. They were to sanctify themselves, which in- 
cluded a washing. Under the apostles this washing -was 
not constantly practiced, but some teachers emphasized it. 
The time came w T hen the bather no longer went to the 
bath alone, but was accompanied by some one who spoke 
words over him while he bathed. Later the words were 
spoken only by a priestly mouth and the bathing or dip- 
ping was done by priestly hands. Both Jews and Gentiles 
practiced both washing and sprinkling. The Church so 
far as water was used at all practiced washing with occa- 
sional sprinkling. Later each individual was dipped and 
sprinkled and then anointed with oil, and all this, if pos- 


THE SUPPER. 


259 


sible, by the hands of a bishop. Baptism grew with the 
episcopacy, and increased in importance in the Church 
as spirituality declined. 

The Supper. 

In the investigation of anything we must proceed from 
the known to the unknown. Res incerta e re certa con- 
firmanda est. It is absolutely certain that Jesus taught 
that the only condition of acceptance with God is faith. 
One must have true faith, and one needs nothing aside 
from this. (See teaching of Jesus, page 127.) This be- 
ing true, Jesus cannot have instituted any sacrament, 
unless the sacrament could increase faith. But to say 
that a sacramental act can increase faith is to say not 
merely an unreasonable thing, but something that we can- 
not even think. It is moreover contrary to the teaching 
of Jesus. Once the disciples asked Jesus to increase their 
faith. (Luke 17 :5-10.) If a sacramental act could have 
answered their prayer, he would no doubt have directed 
them to perform it. On the contrary he taught them that 
the longing for, the expectation of a reward is a hind- 
rance to faith, that they should expect work, do their 
work faithfully and be humble. To labor patiently and 
humbly with and for God is the only means of increasing 
faith. But this is the farthest possible remove from a 
sacramental act. It is then certain that Jesus did not 
institute a sacramental act. Nearly all the treatises on 
the supper that I have read err alike in inferring from 
certain texts that Jesus did institute something and then 
in trying to determine from the same texts what he did 
institute. That the meaning of those texts is doubtful is 
abundantly proved by the fact that although they have 
been examined times without number during the past 
centuries, no agreement as to their meaning has to this 


260 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


day been reached. Now the certain thing is the sole nec- 
essity of faith, and the way indicated by Jesus in which 
faith will increase. The uncertain thing is the meaning 
of the above mentioned texts. To interpret these texts so 
as to force a change in the conclusion with regard to 
faith and the manner of its growth, is to subvert the cer- 
tain thing by means of the uncertain, which is just the 
reverse of the correct procedure. On the sure foundation 
of the things certain, and according to the universally ac- 
cepted method of procedure, let us examine these texts. 

We will first consider what Paul says about the supper, 
for he is correcting an abuse, which enables us all the bet- 
ter to understand the use. In the first letter to the Corin- 
thians that has come down to us, Paul wrote concerning 
their intercourse with sinners in the church and out of 
the church, concerning marriage, and this at considerable 
length, concerning the eating of things offered to idols, 
with regard to the paying of preachers, with regard to 
the relation of man and woman, and as to how each 
should wear the hair. None of this is legal or statutory 
in its form and nature, but is largely advice and that not 
always given on the basis of immutable principles, but 
sometimes clearly on the ground of expediency. “Now I 
praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold 
fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. But 
I would have you know that the head of every man is 
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the 
head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesy- 
ing, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But 
every woman praying or prophesying with her head un- 
veiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same 
thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, 
let her be shorn, but if it is a shame to a woman to be 
shaven let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to 


THE SUPPER. 


261 


have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the glory of God; 
but the woman is the glory of the man; for neither was 
the man created for the woman, but the woman for the 
man; for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of 
authority on her head, because of the angels. Howbeit 
neither is the woman without the man, nor the man with- 
out the woman in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11 :2-12.) In the first 
part of this he asserts the superiority of the man over the 
woman. He, therefore, thinks it proper that the man have 
his head uncovered, and that he have short hair, while the 
woman should have long hair and her head covered. The 
last clause seems to say that this difference is not an 
essential difference, that is, in the Lord this difference 
does not exist. That this is the real conviction of Paul 
we see by Gal. 3 :28. “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, 
there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male 
and female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” But at 
that time and under the existing circumstances he thought 
his advice good and it no doubt was so. He calls the rec- 
ommended customs traditions which he had delivered 
them. To regard these traditions as a part of the teach- 
ing of Jesus, and thus give the outward form of these 
traditions eternal value, would subvert the teaching of 
Paul. The quality of soul that Paul was here striving 
after has indeed eternal value. Women should not only 
appear modest, but be modest, but the demand that women 
should in all countries and in all ages veil their heads in 
church is a very different thing. Paul had no thought of 
establishing forms. It is worthy of note that the supper 
was one of these traditions. For the convenience of the 
reader we will quote the whole passage. (1 Cor. 11 :17-34.) 
“But in giving you this charge, I praise you not that ye 
come together not for the better but for the worse. For 
first of all when ye come together in the church, I hear 


262 


WHIAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


that division exists among you; and I partly believe it. 
For there must be also heresies among you, that they 
which are approved are made manifest among you. When, 
therefore, ye assemble yourselves together, it is not pos- 
sible to eat the Lord’s supper; for in eating each one 
taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry 
and another is drunken. What? Have ye no houses to 
eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, 
and put them to shame that have not? W r hat shall I say 
to you? Shall 1 praise you in this? I praise you not. 
For I received of the Lord that which I also delivered 
unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 
he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given 
thanks he brake it, and said, This is my body which is 
for you ; this do in remembrance of me. In like manner 
also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new 
covenant in my blood; this do, as often as ye drink (it) 
in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread 
and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he 
come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink 
the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the 
body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove him- 
self, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 
For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh 
judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. For 
this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not 
a few sleep. But if we discerned ourselves, we should not 
be judged. But when we are judged we are chastened of 
the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, 
wait one for another.’’ There is not only an inconsistency 
but also a contradiction, or at least a seeming contradic- 
tion in this passage. The first verse reads, “Be ye imi- 
tators of me, even as I am of Christ.” The second verse 


THE SUPPER. 


263 


reads, “Now I praise you that ye remember me in all 
things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered 
them to you.” It is hardly necessary to urge them to be 
or become imitators, for according to the second verse 
they were that already. But the second verse seems to 
say too much, for from the seventeenth verse on we read 
of a tradition that they were not holding fast. The 
change of “that” in the second verse into “when” would 
relieve both difficulties, and is made by changing the 
smallest Greek letter. I praise you when you remember, 
etc. 

Fortunately for us the Corinthians had not been keep- 
ing the tradition with regard to the supper. If they had 
kept it Paul would not have mentioned it, and we should 
then not have sufficient information to be able to deter- 
mine the character and the purpose of the supper. But 
in correcting the abuse of this tradition he has supplied 
all that we need to understand both the outer form and 
the inner purpose of this tradition as Paul had it in 
mind. That he had also in this matter the mind of the 
Lord we need not doubt. We must note carefully to 
what he objects. “For first of all when ye come together 
in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you.” 
As in all this there is no question of doctrine or belief, I 
should like to put cliques instead of heresies. It means 
really selections. There were divisions, that is, some per- 
sons were unsympathetic, uncongenial, or perhaps dis- 
agreeable to others. There were then others who were 
bound together by ties other than Christian love. Where 
there are divisions there will also be cliques or sets. We 
observe that when there are divisions the supper cannot 
be eaten. If a church will eat the Lord’s supper, its mem- 
bers must be bound together by brotherly love. If they 
are not united by Christian love they may eat and drink 


264 


WHIAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


what they will, and how they will, but they cannot eat 
the Lord’s supper. Let us read farther, “for in your eat- 
ing each one taketh before other his own supper, and one 
is hungry and another is drunken.” If these words are 
to be taken in their strict sense, there were no cliques in 
the church, for each one ate alone. That would be divi- 
sion carried to the limit. It is not probable that that is 
the meaning. Families were certainly grouped together, 
and no doubt in some cases several families joined and 
had their supper in common. Some had abundance while 
others had little or nothing. At such a supper there was 
not even a semblance of brotherly love. Nothing but 
gross selfishness. Such conduct at a neighborhood picnic 
would be very unseemly, how much more so when they 
pretended to eat the Lord’s supper. That this was eating 
and drinking in an unworthy manner is beyond question. 
To eat and drink unworthily is to be guilty of the body 
and the blood of the Lord. To eat and to drink in such a 
way as to become guilty of the blood of the Lord is to eat 
and to drink judgment to one’s self. But a man eats and 
drinks judgment unto himself when he eats and drinks 
without discerning the body of the Lord. It is usually 
said that it is here required that one discern that the 
bread eaten is not common bread, but the body of the 
Lord. This discernment is to be reached through self- 
examination. It is not clear how one could come to see 
by self-examination that the bread used is the body of the 
Lord. Self-examination might reveal one’s belief about 
the matter, but hardly more. But the case in hand tells 
us plainly what Paul meant by these words. The twen- 
tieth verse tells us that many of the Corinthians were suf- 
fering under this judgment. They had failed to discern 
the Lord’s body, and the Corinthians showed by their con- 
duct that they had no idea that they were all members of 


THE SUPPER. 


265 


one body. The rich were not merely indifferent to the 
poor, but they even put them to shame. This was to 
eradicate love, to banish the spirit of Christ, and to de- 
stroy the brotherhood. This was a great crime against 
the body (church) and the blood (Spirit) of their Lord. 
If they had examined themselves they would certainly 
have discerned that there was no love in their hearts. Let 
a man examine himself and so let him eat. That is, his 
eating must be according to the result of his examina- 
tion. If he finds in his heart love to his brethren, the 
recognition that they are all members of the body of 
Christ, let him eat; but if he find no love, no recognition 
of the fact that Christians are all members of the body of 
Christ he must not eat. 

That Paul understood by “body of Christ” the believers 
in the church, and not that which was nailed to the cross, 
nor the bread the church may eat, is conclusively shown 
by another passage that is thought to be very nearly re- 
lated to the one we are considering. “The cup of bless- 
ing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of 
Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion 
of the body of Christ?” Seeing that there is one bread, 
we who are man}^ are one body ; for we all partake of one 
bread.” (1 Cor. 10:16-17.) The one bread is Jesus. “My 
father giveth you the true bread out of heaven. For the 
bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven 
and giveth life unto the world.” “I am the bread of life; 
he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that be- 
lieveth on me shall never thirst.” “I am the bread of life. 
Your fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness, and 
they died. This is the bread which cometh down out of 
heaven that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” 

“Jesus therefore said unto them: Verily, verily, I say 
unto you. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and 


266 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that 
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; 
and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is 
meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eat- 
eth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I 
in him.” (John 6:48-51 and 53-58.) Jesus is the bread of 
life. He is the food, nourishment, sustenance of be- 
lievers. The words he uses seem at first very strong; his 
disciples said, “This is a hard saying,” but when we take 
his words in their proper meaning, that is, in their spir- 
itual meaning, they are not strong or in any sense hard. 
He explained to his disciples that his words were to be 
taken in a spiritual sense. “It is the spirit that quick- 
eneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I 
have spoken unto you are spirit and are life.” That he 
meant a spiritual act by the eating of his flesh is shown 
by the fact that he uses the expression, “to eat his flesh” 
and “to believe on him” interchangeably. Take the two 
passages, “For this is the will of my Father that every 
one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should 
have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last 
day,” and “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the 
last day.” To eat the flesh of Jesus and to drink his 
blood is to appropriate the principles of his life into our 
lives, so that our lives shall become his life, and his life 
our life. We shall live because he lives in us. By faith 
we feed on him and grow by the strength he gives us. He 
is the living bread, the bread of life. The words in the 
sixth chapter of John can have nothing more to do with 
the supper than with our every day meals. Let us stop here 
a moment and consider seriously the commonly accepted 
view that Jesus arranged to communicate something to 
his followers through a morsel of bread which he made 


THE SUPPER. 


267 


to be or to represent his body, and which they were to eat 
at indefinite times. Is this bread thought of as the ve- 
hicle of certain blessings? Does the bread contain the 
blessing as the purse contains the gold, so that 
when the bread is given the blessings are given just 
as when the purse is given the gold is given? 
If the benefits are not contained in the morsel 
of bread, does the Lord confer the benefits on ac- 
count of and at the time of the eating? That is really 
magic. If the benefits are not obtained in any of these 
ways, are they obtained through faith? Perhaps the 
majority of Christians would say that faith is the hand 
by which we receive and the organ by which we appro- 
priate all spiritual benefits. Is faith aided in any way 
by the eating of a morsel of bread? But it is sometimes 
said that it ceases to be bread and becomes a heavenly 
substance. If so, we can partake of heavenly substance 
and need no medium. We have, indeed, none, for the 
bread is no longer bread. Why go round in a circle? Let 
us turn again to Corinthians 10:16. 

To bring this passage into verbal accord with the 
sixth chapter of John, we must change the word 
body to flesh. The bread which we break, is it 
not the communion of the flesh of Christ? Of course, 
the thought would be the same if neither body nor 
flesh were in the sentence, for the eating of the flesh 
of Jesus is the eating of Jesus. There is as little need 
for the word body here as in the connection with “devils.” 
“I wish you not to become the partakers of the devils.” The 
partaking of Jesus is put in contrast with the partaking 
of the devils. We can understand how the church can 
be the body of Christ. The indwelling Spirit uses Chris- 
tian feet for errands of mercy, Christian hands for deeds 
of love, Christian tongues for words of instruction and 


268 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

consolation. But how can a loaf of bread be the body of 
Christ? Bread is to be eaten. We do not speak of eating 
a body. Flesh is to be eaten, the body is for activity. If 
the bread could represent anything, it would be at most 
the flesh, not the body of Christ. But the eating of the 
flesh of Jesus is a spiritual act, so that the bread can 
neither represent flesh nor body; it can represent only 
bread. But what is to be understood by the cup of bless- 
ing which we bless and “the bread which we break” ? The 
cup of blessing which we bless must be an abbreviated 
expression for the cup for which we bless or praise God 
or Christ. That would then be any cup without regard 
to time, place or contents, of which we drink with grati- 
tude and praise to God. The bread is defined by the 
clause “which we break” to show that he means earthly 
bread, not the bread from heaven. That we praise God 
for the bread as well as for the cup is certainly under- 
stood. When we drink of a cup and eat bread or food 
with thanksgiving or praise to God, we are doing as Jesus 
did, we are adopting or appropriating his life, which he 
calls eating his flesh and drinking his blood. This is not 
confined to eating. Whenever we do anything with the 
same motive, same sentiment, same purpose, with which 
Jesus did it, we are appropriating his life, that is, eating 
his flesh and drinking his blood. But in this chapter the 
taking of food is the subject under consideration. Eating 
and drinking, as everything else, may be done, should be 
done to the glory of God. “Whether therefore ye eat or 
drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” 
(Yerse 31.) This we are certainly to do at every meal, 
and not merely at some special times. Every cup for 
which thanks is given is a cup of the Lord, and every table 
at which God is praised is a table of the Lord. If we eat 
to-day in our homes at a table of the Lord, we should 


THE SUPPER. 


269 


not be willing to-morrow to eat at a table of devils. We 
want to eat every meal at a table of the Lord, where God 
is praised. To drink of the cnp of the Lord and eat at 
the table of the Lord is to partake of the bread of life, 
that is, Jesns himself, and not something that is supposed 
to represent him. 

Since the expression body of Christ is so generally used 
by Paul to designate the church, and since he had that in 
mind at the time, “we who are many, are one body,” and 
since he was thinking of Jesus as the bread of life, which 
nourishes us, it seems certain that the word body in the 
question “is it not a communion of the body of Christ?” 
is not genuine. Of course nothing turns upon it. Its 
presence only tends to make a little confusion. To eat 
the body of Jesus would mean the same to us as to eat 
his flesh, but since body had acquired a specific meaning 
it should not be used in an other sense, at least in immedi- 
ate connection with its specific sense. The conclusion is 
that Paul was not writing about a sacramental eating 
and drinking in this chapter, but about every day eating 
and drinking, which should be done with thanksgiving 
and praise. 

Let us now note some of the things that are not said. 
Paul does not say that the Corinthians met at the wrong 
time, that they brought the wrong kinds of food, that they 
brought too much or too little food. There is no indica- 
tion that they had only bread and wine. What was 
w r rong? The supper was without kindness, without sym- 
pathy. It was a selfish supper. If they had brought 
enough wholesome food to satisfy all, if they had waited 
till all were present, and had divided the food impartially 
to all, and had eaten with kindly feelings towards one 
another and with gratitude towards the Lord Jesus, it 
would have been the Lord’s supper. The general outward 


270 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


form of this would have been very much like a plain mod- 
ern church supper. We will now see what Jesus is said 
to have done. 

It is thought that some time during the passover Jesus 
took bread and gave thanks and broke it so that each 
disciple might take a little morsel, and, then took a cup 
and gave thanks and then passed it around so that every 
one might take a sip of the contents. The reasons for 
thinking so are : 1. Because we are accustomed to seeing 
something like this. 2. Only bread and the cup are men- 
tioned, and (3) the phrase “as they were eating,” found 
in Matthew and Mark, seems to indicate this. The an- 
swer is: Present customs, however powerful their in- 
fluence, are worthless in determining what was centuries 
ago. 2. Bread often stands for food in general. When 
it is said, Acts 27 :35, that Paul took bread, gave thanks, 
brake it and ate, we are not compelled to think that he 
ate nothing but bread. To take break, give thanks and 
break it, is to begin a meal. 3. As to the phrase, “as they 
were eating,” it occurs twice in Matthew’s account, the 
beginning of which is certainly somewhat confused and 
cannot be exact. But the modern view of the supper, as 
well as the supposed manner of the institution, are re- 
futed by one little sentence used by Paul, viz. : “One is 
hungry.” This says if the supper were properly served 
there would be no hungry persons there. Now the little 
morsel of bread, of whatever kind it may be, and the little 
sip from the cup, whatever it may contain, could not 
satisfy hunger. For that purpose a full meal is needed. 
When Paul says, “the Lord Jesus in the night in which he 
was betrayed, took bread,” he means that Jesus and his 
disciples ate a full meal. There is then no evidence in 
Paul’s account that Jesus during the last supper insti- 
tuted a sacrament. Paul speaks of the last meal as a 


THE SUPPER. 


271 


whole meal, not as a mere interlude. Harnaek, in his 
treatise Brod und Wasser; die eucharistishen Elemente 
bei Justin, reaches the conclusion that in the primitive 
church the supper was a common meal consisting of what- 
ever the people wished to bring. He says that Justin 
found the classic expression for the view of the earliest 
time when he speaks simply of the solid and liquid food. 
The expression is found in chapter 117 of the dialogue with 
Trypho: “Now that prayers and giving of thanks, when 
offered by worthy men, are the only and well-pleasing 
sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians 
have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected 
by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of 
the Son of God, which he endured is brought to mind.” 

Let us turn to what Paul said Jesus did. “He took 
bread and when he had given thanks he brake it.” At the 
beginning of every meal some one, presumably the head 
of the family, broke the bread for distribution. If Jesus 
and his disciples had ever before this eaten a meal to- 
gether as a family, Jesus, no doubt, each time took bread, 
gave thanks and broke it. So he did when he fed the 
thousands. This was then so far only a common act of the 
head of the family. Paul does not say that he gave the 
bread to his disciples to eat, but that is the necessary con- 
clusion from the breaking, together with the whole situa- 
tion. In like manner also the cup “after supper.” Inas- 
much as Luke and the Teaching of the Apostles mention 
the cup before the supper, there must have been some 
controversy in the church concerning the proper order. 
As there seems to be no other reason for the words “after 
supper” they must have been used to fix the order and 
must have had their origin in this controversy. This con- 
troversy could not have been in or before Paul’s time; 
they must therefore have been added later. Whether the 


272 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


words “in like manner” mean that he gave thanks is a 
question. The account as given by Matthew and Mark 
seem to answer this question in the affirmative. But it 
seems more probable that Paul meant that he gave them 
the cup in the same hearty, generous manner in which he 
gave them the bread. As Paul was objecting solely to the 
manner and spirit of the Corinthians manifested in eat- 
ing the supper, the example of Jesus must have been 
cited to show the right spirit and manner. Jesus did not 
take the best of the food for himself, nor did he call a 
few favorites to eat with him. Here was no division, no 
cliques, but one brotherhood. Jesus gave food to all alike 
and even caused the same cup to be passed to all. These 
were all healthy, vigorous men; they might all without 
danger drink out of the same cup. But to deduce from 
this act of Jesus that every Christian assemblage should 
drink out of one and the same cup is not reasoning at all. 
The man who knows that he has a contagious disease, as 
consumption, and drinks out of a cup to be used by others 
is wanting in due regard for the welfare of others, and is 
therefore drinking judgment to himself.. Paul does 
not cite the acts of Jesus to bind certain formal acts 
upon the people, but to show the spirit of brotherly love 
that prevailed at the last supper our Lord ate with his 
disciples. This is what Paul thought should be remem- 
bered. This is what John, too, remembers. He does not 
record the distributing of the bread, nor the drinking out 
of one cup, but that Jesus rose at the beginning of the 
supper and washed the disciples’ feet. This seemed to 
him to be a more significant evidence of the brotherly 
kindness of Jesus. Who will not say that he was right in 
this? We find that Paul saw in what Jesus did, acts of 
kindness, acts of brotherly love. 

We must now consider what Jesus is reported to have 


THE SUPPER. 


273 


said. ‘‘This is my bod} 7 , which is for you.” The words 
“this is my body” are in themselves simple enough, and 
yet how variously they have been understood ! If we un- 
dertake to examine these words we must be careful not 
to give them a meaning contrary to the result already ob- 
tained. We have found that with Paul the Lord’s sup- 
per was a meal eaten by the church in Christian love. 
With proper love in the hearts of all, the kind of food 
and drink was immaterial, if it were only w r holesome. 
So far it has generally been understood that Jesus meant 
this bread is my body, and the effort has been to deter- 
mine in what sense the bread is the body of Christ. Jesus 
does not say, according to the accounts that we have, 
this bread is my body. It is supposed that he spoke these 
words while he yet had the bread in his hands or while 
he was giving it to them. The words to be defined are 
“this” and “body.” The word body occurs again in the 
29th verse, where it certainly seems to mean the church. 
If this conclusion is correct it is at least probable that 
that is the meaning in the 24th verse. Jesus was there, 
the head of the body and his faithful disciples were mem- 
bers of his body joined together with him by the bonds 
of love. Why could not Jesus say, in pointing to this as- 
semblage, This is my body, as he once pointing to his 
disciples said, These are my mother and brethren? Was 
he not in various words and ways expressing his love for 
them? At such a time and under the then existing cir- 
cumstances it was fitting for him to say to his disciples, 
we are one body. That this thought was in his mind at 
that time we know. Some time during that evening he 
said, “I am the vine and ye are the branches.” Here the 
figure is somewhat changed, but the thought in this beau- 
tiful discourse (John 15) is the same. Indeed the vine 
and the branches may have been used to illustrate what 


274 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


he meant by saying to them, This is my body. If this 
be correct we find that John has preserved for us the 
chief things connected with the supper — the brotherly 
love in washing their feet, and the amplification of “this 
is my body” in the discourse on the vine. Inasmuch as 
the disciples were members, or parts of the body, it may 
seem that the words “for you” can have no meaning. It 
may as well read over you , with the idea of place simply, 
or for the purpose of protection or help. In any case this 
is an abbreviated expression. This body, or this arrange- 
ment of the body is for your protection, your help. If 
Jesus said this bread is my body, which is for you, with- 
out an explanation in what sense that bread was the 
body, and of the manner in which it was for them or for 
their benefit, how could his disciples understand him? 
As conclusive proof of the unintelligibility of these words 
in this connection we may cite all the discussions that 
have been had over this point in the last centuries. But 
if he said, this assemblage, he and his disciples, is my 
body, which arrangement is for your protection, your 
benefit, and he explained this by the vine and the branches 
under the loving care of the husbandman, they might well 
have understood him. It is a remarkable thing that men 
will say that the bread is the body of Jesus, and when an 
explanation is asked for they say it represents his body, 
and urged to say in what way it represents his body, they 
name nothing except that the bread was broken, but the 
body of Jesus was not broken, not one of his bones was 
broken. 

“In like manner also the cup after supper, saying, This 
is the new covenant of my blood.” The new covenant is 
fully described. (Jeremiah 31:31-34), which passage is 
quoted in the letter to the Hebrews. This new covenant, 
or we might say this new arrangement, is the indwelling 


THE SUPPER. 


275 


of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the believers. The 
new covenant is therefore something well known. Jesus 
spoke to his disciples at this time about the Helper, the 
Holy Spirit, whom he would send to them. (John 14:25, 
16 :7) . He may have spoken of the realization of this cove- 
nant. He may have said that when the Helper, his Spirit, 
his blood should be in their hearts, the covenant would 
be realized; but this could not be uncil he was glorified. 
(John 7 :39). We can easily see how he may have spoken 
of the realization of the new covenant in his blood, but 
he could not say that that or any other cup was the new 
covenant. We have two statements with regard to the 
new covenant. The one is the dark sentence. “This cup 
is the new covenant in my blood,” found only in Luke 
22 :25 and Cor. 11 :25, without any corroboration any- 
where else in the Bible, and the other is the plain state- 
ment found in Jeremiah 31 :31-34 corroborated by several 
passages in the prophets and by the teaching of the New 
Testament as a whole. There cannot be two new cove- 
nants. Suppose that some one should undertake to say 
that Jesus meant that the cup represented the new cove- 
nant. That as the cup was full of wine (spirits) so they 
should be filled with the Spirit. Would any one care to 
maintain such a position? 

But Westcott and Hort hold that the text commonly 
found in Luke is not genuine. They think he wrote, 
“With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you 
before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not eat it, un- 
til it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he re- 
ceived a cup and when he had given thanks he said, Take 
this and divide it among yourselves : for I say unto you, 
I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, 
until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took 
bread, and when he had given thanks he brake it, and gave 


276 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


to them saying, this is my body.” (22:15-19). In this 
there is nothing said about the new covenant. If this 
shorter text is genuine, it is probable that Paul’s was not 
longer, for it is reasonable to suppose that Luke wrote 
what he had heard Paul say. But the reasons already 
given for rejecting the statement, “This cup is the new 
covenant,” are stronger than manuscript authority, for 
it contradicts the apostles and the teaching of the Holy 
Spirit through the apostles. 

The words “this do in remembrance of me” seem to me 
to be a free and concise reproduction of the following, 
“So when he had washed their feet, and taken his gar- 
ments, and sat down again, he said unto them, “Know' ye 
what I have done to you? Ye call me Lord and Master: 
and ye say well ; for so I am. If then the Lord and the 
Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one 
another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye 
also should do as I have done to you. Yerily, verily I 
say unto you, A servant is not greater than his Lord: 
neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him. 
If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them.” 
(John 13:12-17). “Things” in the last sentence may, 
and I think does, include more than the washing of feet. 
It seems probable that after they had reclined at table, 
which would justify the expression “during supper,” Jesus 
rose and washed their feet, then having taken his gar- 
ments and reclined again, he took bread, gave thanks and 
brake it and gave to his disciples. He then began his dis- 
course as John has given it. “Things” could then include 
the breaking of the bread. But the true meaning of 
“these things” is this thing and all similar things. Noth- 
ing that Jesus did indicates a sacrament. All his deeds 
were useful deeds of life. Nothing in his words indicates 
a sacrament save that his words seem mysterious. This 


THE SUPPER. 


277 


is partly because they are severed from their connection, 
and partly because they have been somewhat modified by 
transcribers who thought them sacramental, and partly 
because we read them with our minds full of sacramental 
ideas. 

When we candidly consider the accounts of the last 
supper as they are presented by the various manuscripts 
under the name of Matthew, of Luke, of John and of Paul 
we find very great differences. When we consider the 
practices of the early church we find again very great 
differences. So far as we can see the tendency was not 
toward diversity of practice, but towards unity of prac- 
tice. Gradually everything was eliminated but bread 
and wine. It is therefore not probable that the texts 
diverged but rather became unified. If Jesus had insti- 
tuted a sacrament, and if there had been a uniform tradi- 
tion with regard to the words and acts of our Savior 
at the last supper, there would have been uniformity of 
practice, especially in the earliest period. If differences 
had arisen at all, they w r ould have come later. 

We have seen that Jesus could not have instituted any 
sacraments. That would have been contrary to his fun- 
damental teaching. At the last supper he washed the 
disciples’ feet but he did not institute feet washing. He 
gave thanks and brake bread, but he did not institute the 
giving of thanks and the breaking of bread. He, no 
doubt, said all the words attributed to him except the 
words “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” but 
he probably did not say them just in the form and con- 
nection in which they are now found, and especially not 
with the intention usually put into them. Jesus reclined 
at table for the last time with his disciples. He gave 
them testimony of his love and care for them, even in 
small bodily matters. He discoursed long with them say- 


278 


WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 


ing profound and beautiful things. That supper was re- 
membered. 

It is commonly assumed that the practice of the church 
with regard to the supper had its origin in the last sup- 
per that Jesus ate with his disciples. But we read that 
the first Christians at Jerusalem had all things in com- 
mon. It was therefore very natural if not necessary to 
have their meals in common. Those w T ho had known 
J esus and who remembered his words and deeds no doubt 
recounted these at these meals as well as at other times. 
The last supper was, of course, remembered by the eleven. 
These conversations about Jesus no doubt influenced 
the character of the meals, but the meals themselves 
had their origin in the physical needs of the people, and 
not in the last supper. That these people held in connec- 
tion with these meals something like a modern communion 
service is wholly imaginary and without even a shadow 
of probability. 

When churches were founded among the Gentiles, 
especially in the larger cities, arrangement had to be 
made for church meals, dinners or suppers. This would 
suggest itself at once, since there were then so many 
societies, the members of which frequently ate together. 
But aside from this it was necessary for the members of 
the church to meet in some way that they might get ac- 
quainted, and become bound together by closer ties. 
Nothing is better for this purpose than a church dinner 
or supper. The time of day is a mere matter of conven- 
ience. There was, however, great danger that the church 
meals might degenerate into a feasting or a merry-mak- 
ing. The coupling therefore of these meals with the last 
supper of our Lord was very wise. It is clear from what 
Paul said to the Corinthians that he used the tradition 
of the supper not only to prevent excesses but to indicate 


THE SUPPER. 


279 


the spirit in which the meal should be eaten. The church 
meals were in the first place religious-social and social- 
religious meals. It was a genuinely social meal under a 
strong religious sentiment. At Corinth the religious 
sentiment was lost and with it the brotherly love. The re- 
ligious sentiment is often wanting at church dinners and 
festivals. But if the religious sentiment is mostly wanting 
in the church suppers, the social sentiment is wholly ab- 
sent from the sacrament. One may attend a communion 
service at a certain church and observe an almost oppres- 
sive gloom. Some time later one may witness unseemly 
hilarity at a festival or dinner in the same church. It 
was a distinct loss to the church when the religious senti- 
ment and the social sentiment in the church meals were 
separated. 

Certainly the wrongs in the Corinthian church, which 
Paul rebuked, could not have grown out of the supper 
as celebrated by any church of modern times. They could 
grow only out of a church meal, and such meals must 
have been recommended by Paul. 

Pliny, in a letter to Trajan, written in the first years 
of the second century, says that by examination he had 
learned that the Christians had the custom to meet be- 
fore sun rise on a fixed day and to sing a song in honor 
of Christ as of a God, and bind themselves with an oath 
not to rob, steal, etc., and that they would then separate, 
but soon come together again to partake of common, in- 
nocent food. Many think that the Christians reporting 
their practices to Pliny said that they bound themselves 
with the sacrament, the supper, not to rob, etc., and that 
Pliny misunderstood. He took sacrament in the sense of 
oath. In order to make this supposition seem probable 
one must show not only that the supper was sometimes 
called sacrament in the beginning of the 2d century, but 


280 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. 

that it was called that in Bithynia, and that the language 
of communication with Pliny was Latin. It cannot be 
shown that the supper was called sacrament anywhere 
early in the 2d century. The earliest name for the supper 
was eucharist. The language of communication with 
Pliny was very probably Greek. In that case the above 
named mistake could not occur. There is no reason for 
thinking that Pliny made any mistake. The truth is 
the Christians met before sun rise, sang praises to Jesus 
and mutually pledged themselves to abstain from all 
crimes. Later they met again and ate a common meal. 
This is very strong confirmation of the conclusion reached 
through the examination of the Scriptures. 

Jesus said, “Go ye and learn what this meaneth, I de- 
sire love and not sacrifice.” (Matt. 9:13, 12:7). We have 
now learned that this means that God desires deeds of 
faith, hope and love, and not rites and ceremonies. But 
may we not have the rites and the deeds of love, too? 
Can a man serve two masters? The church has been try- 
ing for centuries to observe rites and do deeds of right- 
eousness. Is anyone satisfied with the results? Is there 
any reason to think that without change of method, the 
results in the future will be better than those of the past? 
Can any man who loves God and man wish to see the 
church continue in its present distraction and weakness? 
I say church. That is by force of habit. Is there a 
church of Christ on earth? Is there a body energized by 
the Spirit of Jesus, that is with singleness of purpose 
doing the work that Jesus began to do, and that he com- 
mitted to his church to complete? Surely a great refor- 
mation is needed. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 








